Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Peterson

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided November 13, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtin, J.

This is an action to recover the balance of a promissory note which was accelerated for payment in consequence of the defendants’ alleged continuing failure to make timely payments. The trial court denied the plaintiffs Mass. R. Civ. R, Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and reported the ruling to this Division pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. RADA, Rule 5.2

The record indicates that in November, 1992, defendants Curt and Jennifer Peterson (“the Petersons”) executed a promissory note in the amount of $40,000.00 in connection with the settlement of a dispute arising from the Peter-sons’ earlier…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers' Insolvency FundMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  2. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Abington Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  3. Kobayashi v. Orion Ventures, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  4. Service Publications, Inc. v. GovermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  5. A-Z Servicenter, Inc. v. SegallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Georgantis v. Star Market CompaniesMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2000
  2. Melo v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API