Legal Opinion
Dixon v. A. J. Cunningham Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 17, 1926PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.
These exceptions relate to the denial of motions for a new trial.
It is the general rule that the disposition of a motion for a new trial commonly rests in sound judicial discretion. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 82. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 495-497. Matter of Sleeper, 251 Mass. 6, 22. There is nothing in the present record which makes the cases at bar exceptional in that respect.
It is urged that, because the cases were given to the jury about half past twelve o’clock in the afternoon of October 28 and were considered continuously with the exception of time for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Commonwealth v. DascalakisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Commonwealth v. RussMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Simmons v. FishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Woodward v. LeavittMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ValliereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Commonwealth v. GranitoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Claffey v. FenelonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Commonwealth v. HarrisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Shears v. Metropolitan Transit AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.