Legal Opinion
Bonsant v. Rugo
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided February 7, 1961No. Civ. A. No. 59-212PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFREY, District Judge.
The defendant has re-pressed a motion for summary judgment which at an earlier stage of the case was denied without prejudice by another Judge of this Court. The motion is based on the claimed expiration of the Massachusetts statute of limitations, General Laws, Ch. 260, Sec. 2A. Plaintiff resists the motion by contending that the Massachusetts statute of limitations does not apply and that the six-year Maine statute of limitations should determine whether or not the action is time barred.
This is a diversity action of tort for negligence. It is alleged that plaintiff…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Irene Barker, Irene Barker v. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1956
- Clarke v. PierceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
3Cited by4 opinions
- Barbara B. Sack v. V. T. Low, Doing Business as a Partnership Under the Name of Bear, Stearns & Co., and Richard W. SilvermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Gordon v. GordonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Shore v. Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1963
- Hemric v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1983