Gulshen v. King

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gulshen v. King

225 N.E.2d 591, 352 Mass. 771, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 951

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 3, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 225 N.E.2d 591 (Gulshen v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gulshen v. King, 225 N.E.2d 591, 352 Mass. 771, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 951 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort tried to a jury the defendants alleged exceptions relating to rulings of the trial judge on questions of evidence and to his refusal to grant the defendants’ motions for a mistrial, a directed verdict, and a new trial. We perceive no error in the rulings of the judge on evidential matters. Nor was there error in denying a motion for a mistrial based on an isolated question from the plaintiffs’ counsel. [772]*772Cf. Reid v. Hathaway Bakeries, Inc. 333 Mass. 485, 487. There was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and there was no error in denying the defendants’ motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial. See Pochi v. Brett, 319 Mass. 197, 204-205, and cases cited. In short, the exceptions are without merit and the substantial verdict has not in itself warranted the tax upon the litigants, counsel and the court in the lengthy briefs and arguments which this case has produced.

Daniel A. Canning for the defendants. Timothy J. McInerney for the plaintiffs.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of tort tried to a jury the defendants alleged exceptions relating to rulings of the trial judge on questions of evidence and to his refusal to grant the defendants’ motions for a mistrial, a directed verdict, and a new trial. We perceive no error in the rulings of the judge on evidential matters. Nor was there error in denying a motion for a mistrial based on an isolated question from the plaintiffs’ counsel. [772]*772Cf. Reid v. Hathaway Bakeries, Inc. 333 Mass. 485, 487. There was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and there was no error in denying the defendants’ motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial. See Pochi v. Brett, 319 Mass. 197, 204-205, and cases cited. In short, the exceptions are without merit and the substantial verdict has not in itself warranted the tax upon the litigants, counsel and the court in the lengthy briefs and arguments which this case has produced.

Daniel A. Canning for the defendants. Timothy J. McInerney for the plaintiffs.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 N.E.2d 591, 352 Mass. 771, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulshen-v-king-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack