Leonardi v. City or Peabody

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Leonardi v. City or Peabody

222 N.E.2d 686, 351 Mass. 706

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 N.E.2d 686 (Leonardi v. City or Peabody) 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

Leonardi v. City or Peabody, 222 N.E.2d 686, 351 Mass. 706 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Two exceptions are before us following the trial of a petition for the assessment of damages for the taking of land by the city. The first relates to the denial of the petitioners’ motion, made at the close of the evidence, that the entire testimony of the city’s only qualified witness, who had testified without objection earlier in the trial, be struck from the record. That a party is not as of right entitled to have such a motion allowed has been discussed and decided with full citation of eases in Crowley v. Swanson, 283 Mass. 82, 85, Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 563, 566-568 and Solomon v. Dabrowski, 295 Mass. 358, 359-360. The other exception is to the denial of the motion for a new trial. The [707]*707considerations which govern the disposition of a motion for a new trial were stated at length in Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 40-44, and have been so frequently confirmed and applied by us as not to require repetition. Haven v. Brimfield, 345 Mass. 529, 533-534. There was no error.

Edward J. Davis for the intervening petitioner. No argument or brief for the respondent.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Two exceptions are before us following the trial of a petition for the assessment of damages for the taking of land by the city. The first relates to the denial of the petitioners’ motion, made at the close of the evidence, that the entire testimony of the city’s only qualified witness, who had testified without objection earlier in the trial, be struck from the record. That a party is not as of right entitled to have such a motion allowed has been discussed and decided with full citation of eases in Crowley v. Swanson, 283 Mass. 82, 85, Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 563, 566-568 and Solomon v. Dabrowski, 295 Mass. 358, 359-360. The other exception is to the denial of the motion for a new trial. The [707]*707considerations which govern the disposition of a motion for a new trial were stated at length in Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 40-44, and have been so frequently confirmed and applied by us as not to require repetition. Haven v. Brimfield, 345 Mass. 529, 533-534. There was no error.

Edward J. Davis for the intervening petitioner. No argument or brief for the respondent.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 N.E.2d 686, 351 Mass. 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonardi-v-city-or-peabody-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack