Legal Opinion

Cerrato v. Miller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 8, 1928PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

The only exception is to refusal of the judge to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the judge, and no exception lies unless an abuse of judicial discretion or an error of law arising in the hearing on the motion is shown. Commonwealth v. Devereaux, 257 Mass. 391. Berggren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 231 Mass. 173, 176. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482. Nothing to the contrary is decided by Simmons v. Fish, 210 Mass. 563, or Purcell v. Rose, 261 Mass. 431.

*535The finding for the plaintiff established that the accident which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  2. Simmons v. FishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  3. Commonwealth v. DevereauxMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  4. Berggren v. Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  5. Purcell v. RoseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  2. State v. BatdorfSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Palakiko v. Harper, Warden of Oahu PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
  4. Commonwealth v. SharpeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
  5. State v. NelsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959

14 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