Nagle v. Regan

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Nagle v. Regan

12 Mass. App. Ct. 906

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 Mass. App. Ct. 906 (Nagle v. Regan) 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

Nagle v. Regan, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 906 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The judge’s third ruling (conclusion) of law was correct. DePasqua v. Bergstedt, 355 Mass. 734, 736 (1969). 2. His ninth finding of fact was warranted by the evidence and cannot be pronounced “clearly erroneous” (see Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157, 160-161 [1977], and cases cited) within the meaning of Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass’. 816 (1974). See Blanchette v. Blanchette, 362 Mass. 518, 523-524 (1972), and cases cited. 3. The plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial by reason of the fact (if it was such) that the judge had expressed to both counsel a preliminary view of the evidence different from the one he entertained at the conclusion of the case. As the plaintiff concedes in his brief, “[a] judge has a right and even a duty to change his mind about the facts or the law when there is no bar in law to his doing so and he is convinced that his view of either is erroneous.” The order denying the motion for a new trial and the judgment are affirmed, with double costs.

So ordered.

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

1. The judge’s third ruling (conclusion) of law was correct. DePasqua v. Bergstedt, 355 Mass. 734, 736 (1969). 2. His ninth finding of fact was warranted by the evidence and cannot be pronounced “clearly erroneous” (see Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157, 160-161 [1977], and cases cited) within the meaning of Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass’. 816 (1974). See Blanchette v. Blanchette, 362 Mass. 518, 523-524 (1972), and cases cited. 3. The plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial by reason of the fact (if it was such) that the judge had expressed to both counsel a preliminary view of the evidence different from the one he entertained at the conclusion of the case. As the plaintiff concedes in his brief, “[a] judge has a right and even a duty to change his mind about the facts or the law when there is no bar in law to his doing so and he is convinced that his view of either is erroneous.” The order denying the motion for a new trial and the judgment are affirmed, with double costs.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Mass. App. Ct. 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagle-v-regan-massappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack