Previte v. Butcher Boy Steak House, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Previte v. Butcher Boy Steak House, Inc.

322 N.E.2d 437, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 703

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 31, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 322 N.E.2d 437 (Previte v. Butcher Boy Steak House, Inc.) 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

Previte v. Butcher Boy Steak House, Inc., 322 N.E.2d 437, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 703 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s requests for rulings were grounded (as are the arguments in its brief) on the faulty premise that the plaintiff was required to show that Ferro (as well as Yameen) was an agent, servant or employee of the defendant at the time of the assault; it was enough (as the judge could have found) that Ferro was acting under Yameen’s control. Schultz v. Purcell’s, Inc. 320 Mass. 579, 581 (1947). Contrast Perras v. Hi-Hat, Inc. 326 Mass. 78, 80-81 (1950). There was no request to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding for the plaintiff, nor any request which raised any question of a possible variance between the pleadings and the proof (see Berwin v. Levenson, 311 Mass. 239, 246 [1942]).

Exceptions overruled.

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

The defendant’s requests for rulings were grounded (as are the arguments in its brief) on the faulty premise that the plaintiff was required to show that Ferro (as well as Yameen) was an agent, servant or employee of the defendant at the time of the assault; it was enough (as the judge could have found) that Ferro was acting under Yameen’s control. Schultz v. Purcell’s, Inc. 320 Mass. 579, 581 (1947). Contrast Perras v. Hi-Hat, Inc. 326 Mass. 78, 80-81 (1950). There was no request to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding for the plaintiff, nor any request which raised any question of a possible variance between the pleadings and the proof (see Berwin v. Levenson, 311 Mass. 239, 246 [1942]).

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 437, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/previte-v-butcher-boy-steak-house-inc-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack