Legal Opinion

Davis, Malm & D'Agostine v. Lahnston

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 25, 2012No. 11-P-35PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAgnes, J.

Until 2008, Mass.R.Civ.P. 64A required a party in a civil case tried in the Boston Municipal Court and District Court departments, to file a special type of request for a ruling of law known as a “warrants” request in order to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the party with the burden of proof.1 These were *255requests that the evidence “warrants a finding for the requesting party” or “does not warrant a finding for the opposing party.”2 Under current practice, the sufficiency of the evidence in a jury-waived trial conducted in the Boston…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Bresnick v. HeathMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  2. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  3. Perry v. HanoverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  4. Hoffman v. City of ChelseaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  5. Stella v. CurtisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SzewczykMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
  2. New England Sports Therapy, Inc. v. Metlife Auto & HomeMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API