Legal Opinion

Chu Tai v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 22, 1998No. 96-P-1991PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.

Were the decision ours in the first instance, we would not have been inclined to grant the city of Boston’s motion for relief from judgment entered against it in this motor vehicle tort case. Such, however, is the deference afforded trial judges when they act on rule 60(b) motions that we decline to reverse the judgment. A judge of the Superior Court allowed the city’s motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). A single justice of the Appeals Court granted the plaintiffs leave to bring an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court judge’s ruling.

As a method of alternative…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Feltch v. General Rental Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Schulte v. Director of the Division of Employment SecurityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  4. Cullen Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  5. Scannell v. Ed. Ferreirinha & Irmao, Lda.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Gath v. M/A-Com, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
  2. Clamp-All Corp. v. ForestaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
  3. Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  4. Tufankjian v. Rockland Trust Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
  5. Care & Protection of GeorgetteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002

48 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