Root v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Root v. Commonwealth

213 N.E.2d 474, 350 Mass. 764, 1966 Mass. LEXIS 850

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 13, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

This is a petition under G-. L. c. 79. The trial judge committed no abuse of discretion by admitting the opinion testimony of Mrs. Birdsall, daughter and manager of the affairs of the landowner at the time of the taking. Nichols, Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d) § 18.4 [2], p. 202. See Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co. 285 Mass. 499, 503-505; Southwick v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy. 339 Mass. 666, 668-669. Cf. Rubin v. Arlington, 327 Mass. 382, 383-385.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is a petition under G-. L. c. 79. The trial judge committed no abuse of discretion by admitting the opinion testimony of Mrs. Birdsall, daughter and manager of the affairs of the landowner at the time of the taking. Nichols, Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d) § 18.4 [2], p. 202. See Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co. 285 Mass. 499, 503-505; Southwick v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy. 339 Mass. 666, 668-669. Cf. Rubin v. Arlington, 327 Mass. 382, 383-385.

Exceptions overruled.

Root v. Commonwealth, 213 N.E.2d 474, 350 Mass. 764, 1966 Mass. LEXIS 850 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

213 N.E.2d 474 (Root v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related