Adams v. O'Loughlin

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Adams v. O'Loughlin

325 N.E.2d 304, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729

DecidedMarch 31, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 325 N.E.2d 304 (Adams v. O'Loughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. O'Loughlin, 325 N.E.2d 304, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum in the writ was properly allowed for the reasons stated by the trial judge in his memorandum and order thereon. Judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict returned by the jury. The plaintiff is to have double costs from September 3, 1974, together with interest from that date on the amount of the verdict (and on the interest thereon), to be computed at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. G. L. c. 211A, § 15. J. L. Vaughan Heating & Engr. Co. Inc. v. Cantor, ante, 709 (1975).

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum in the writ was properly allowed for the reasons stated by the trial judge in his memorandum and order thereon. Judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict returned by the jury. The plaintiff is to have double costs from September 3, 1974, together with interest from that date on the amount of the verdict (and on the interest thereon), to be computed at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. G. L. c. 211A, § 15. J. L. Vaughan Heating & Engr. Co. Inc. v. Cantor, ante, 709 (1975).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 N.E.2d 304, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-oloughlin-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack