Legal Opinion

O'MALLEY v. Putnam Safe Deposit Vaults, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided December 30, 1983PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial judge allowed a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant on all counts. The plaintiff (O’Malley) urges that the evidence, taken as it must be in the light most favorable to him, was sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict under the legal test, namely, whether “anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn” in his favor. Poirier v. Plymouth, 374 Mass. 206, 212 (1978), quoting from Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass. 341,…

2Cases cited55 opinions

  1. Mullins v. Pine Manor CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  2. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Poirier v. Town of PlymouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  4. Raunela v. Hertz Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  5. Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Worcester Insurance v. Fells Acres Day School, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  2. Mathis v. Massachusetts Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  3. Fahey v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
  4. Schenker v. BinnsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
  5. David K. Richards v. Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc., H. Ray Christman and Platte Valley BankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API