Legal Opinion
Mancuso v. Kinchla
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided March 3, 2004No. 02-P-742PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLaurence, J.
Joseph Mancuso and Rosario Urdi (herein the appellants) challenge two decisions of a Superior Court judge. The first allowed the motion of Michael Kinchla to dismiss their August 20, 1999, complaint against him as barred by the doctrine of “res judicata.” The second denied their motion for leave to amend that complaint. We conclude that those rulings were legally correct and agree with Kinchla that the appellants’ arguments are without merit.
1. Background. The appellants were coowners (with Kinchla’s father) of a limited liability company, Disola Development, LLC (Disola), organized in…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Moore v. New York Cotton ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Giragosian v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- McDonough v. City of QuincyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Alston v. Town of Brookline, MACourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- Department of Revenue v. Ryan R.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
- Santos v. U.S Bank National AssociationMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.