Higgins v. Trefry

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Higgins v. Trefry

294 N.E.2d 476, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 N.E.2d 476 (Higgins v. Trefry) 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

Higgins v. Trefry, 294 N.E.2d 476, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury which returned verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdicts were against the law, the evidence, and the weight of the evidence and that the judge had misdirected the jury in his charge in two areas. No exception was taken to the charge at the trial. The motion was denied, and the plaintiffs’ exception to the denial is now before us. Such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the judge. Kinnear v. General Mills, Inc. 308 Mass. 344, 348. Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co. 321 Mass. 406, 412. We discern no abuse of this discretion. We have examined the part of the judge’s charge set out in the record and find no error.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury which returned verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdicts were against the law, the evidence, and the weight of the evidence and that the judge had misdirected the jury in his charge in two areas. No exception was taken to the charge at the trial. The motion was denied, and the plaintiffs’ exception to the denial is now before us. Such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the judge. Kinnear v. General Mills, Inc. 308 Mass. 344, 348. Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co. 321 Mass. 406, 412. We discern no abuse of this discretion. We have examined the part of the judge’s charge set out in the record and find no error.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 N.E.2d 476, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-trefry-massappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack