Home/Massachusetts Appeals Court/Alaimo v. Fredette

Alaimo v. Fredette

358 N.E.2d 453, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 866
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedDecember 23, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 358 N.E.2d 453 (Alaimo v. Fredette) 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
Alaimo v. Fredette, 358 N.E.2d 453, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 866 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

We do not reach any question of whether the judge might have abused his discretion in denying the defendants’ motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). The judge, who had presided at the trial of the matter, made no findings of fact in connection with his denial of the motion (“After evidentiary hearing — motion denied”). See the last sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974); Pierce v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 352, 353, n.4 (1975). For all that appears, the judge may not have believed some or any of the testimony offered in support of the motion.

Order denying relief from judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Barrett v. Pereira
1997 Mass. App. Div. 45 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1997)
Pyramid Co. v. Oakwood Farms of Rochester, Inc.
3 Mass. Supp. 258 (Massachusetts District Court, 1982)
Pyramid Co. v. Oakwood Farms of Rochester, Inc.
1982 Mass. App. Div. 29 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1982)
Berube v. McKesson Wine & Spirits Co.
388 N.E.2d 309 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Forte v. Muzi Motors, Inc.
369 N.E.2d 1030 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 N.E.2d 453, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alaimo-v-fredette-massappct-1976.