Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 28, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

This is an action under the Federal employers’ liability act, U. S. C. (1934 ed.) Title 45, §§ 51-59, as amended.

Upon the return of a verdict for the plaintiff the judge reserved leave under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 120, to enter a verdict for the defendant. Thereafter the defendant moved that judgment be entered “under leave reserved” on the defendant’s “Motion for Directed Verdict,” apparently referring to a motion for a directed verdict in its favor which the defendant had filed during the trial, but which the judge had then denied. The judge allowed the motion for judgment. The…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. CooganSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De AtleySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed Stone Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
  2. Durdle v. BaronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
  3. Sawtelle v. Mystic Valley Gas Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1974
  4. Wheeler v. Boston Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  5. Messina v. Trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API