Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Coady v. Stack

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided October 25, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFurnari, J.

(Concurring in part and Dissenting in part) I agree that the trial judge’s failure to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs motion for an assessment of triple damages constituted clear and prejudicial error, and I join in the order vacating the default judgment and returning this case to the trial court for further proceedings. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s decision to restrict such proceedings to a hearing for the assessment of damages, for the record in this case compels the conclusion that the motion judge abused his discretion in precluding a trial on…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pentucket Manor Chronic Hospital, Inc. v. Rate Setting CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  2. Greenleaf v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1986
  3. Guardianship of BassettMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  4. Finkel v. Natale Rota, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
  5. Feeney v. AbdelahadMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978

4 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