Legal Opinion

Bifano v. Anderson

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided February 19, 1991Published

1Opinion of the CourtHershfang, J.

In this petition to set aside the Trial Judge’s disallowance of the Draft Report of the two third-party defendants, Anderson and Marino, (Appellants), they acknowledgedly stand on a narrow platform. Their task, as their counsel conceded in oral argument, is to establish that the Trial Judge was required to find for them as a matter of law. Or, put differently, that the Trial Judge had no adequate basis in the evidence to support his determination that Appellants were each responsible for one-third of the cost of the lawyers’ fees determined to be due to the lawfirms of LeComte, Emmanuel, Tick…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shain Investment Co., Inc. v. CohenMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
  2. Tull v. Mister Donut Development Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  3. Brown v. QuinnMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1989
  4. O'Flanagan v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API