Legal Opinion

Cadillac Automobile Co. v. Stout

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided May 10, 1985PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stout’s letter had not specified a date and hour for delivery of the deed. Instead, it gave the name, address, and telephone number of “[t]he attorney representing me in the purchase . . . and [it continued] I assume your attorney will contact him to set a date for closing, arranging for title search, etc.” The Land Court judge (who, by assignment of the Chief Administrative Justice, see G. L. c. 211B, § 9, simultaneously heard Cadillac’s Land Court action to remove the cloud on its title and Stout’s Superior Court action for specific performance) did not err in ruling that Stout’s letter was…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  2. Limpus v. ArmstrongMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
  3. Loitherstein v. International Business MacHines Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  4. American Oil Co. v. KatsikasMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
  5. Mucci v. Brockton Bocce Club, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1985

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nissan Automobiles of Marlborough, Inc. v. GlickMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  2. Computune, Inc. v. TocioMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
  3. Vickery v. WaltonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1989
  4. Russell v. RibeiroMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2006
  5. Snay v. ProutyMassachusetts Superior Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API