Russo v. Star Market Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Russo v. Star Market Co.

375 N.E.2d 344, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 875

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedApril 28, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 375 N.E.2d 344 (Russo v. Star Market Co.) 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

Russo v. Star Market Co., 375 N.E.2d 344, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 875 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

1. We do not consider the ground now urged by the defendant in support of its motion for a directed verdict because that ground was not stated in the motion or otherwise brought to the attention of the trial judge when the motion was presented to him at the close of all the evidence. Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(a), 365 Mass. 814 (1974). Moy v. Jack Madden Ford Sales, Inc., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 102, 107-108 (1976). Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 386-387 n.l (1976), rev’d on other grounds, 373 Mass. 96 (1977). Parslow v. Pilgrim Parking, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 822 (1977). 2. Our declination in that respect deprives the defendant’s second point of any significance. 3. The third point has not been argued within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14 (1958).

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. We do not consider the ground now urged by the defendant in support of its motion for a directed verdict because that ground was not stated in the motion or otherwise brought to the attention of the trial judge when the motion was presented to him at the close of all the evidence. Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(a), 365 Mass. 814 (1974). Moy v. Jack Madden Ford Sales, Inc., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 102, 107-108 (1976). Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 386-387 n.l (1976), rev’d on other grounds, 373 Mass. 96 (1977). Parslow v. Pilgrim Parking, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 822 (1977). 2. Our declination in that respect deprives the defendant’s second point of any significance. 3. The third point has not been argued within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14 (1958).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 N.E.2d 344, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-star-market-co-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack