Slusarz v. Republican Publishing Co.

170 N.E.2d 322, 341 Mass. 729
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 2, 1960
StatusPublished

This text of 170 N.E.2d 322 (Slusarz v. Republican Publishing Co.) 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
Slusarz v. Republican Publishing Co., 170 N.E.2d 322, 341 Mass. 729 (Mass. 1960).

Opinion

Order affirmed. This is an action of tort for libel. The declaration, which is in one count covering more than five pages of the printed record, contains a confused statement of arguments and recitals of evidence. The plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer on the ground that the “declaration does not state concisely and with substantial certainty the substantive facts necessary to constitute a legal cause of action against -this defendant, substantially in accordance with the requirements of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231.” This ground is properly expressed. See G. L. c. 231, § 7, Second. The demurrer was rightly sustained. Flower v. Suburban Land Co. Inc. 332 Mass. 30, 32-33. Vigoda v. Barton, 338 Mass. 302, 303.

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

Related

Vigoda v. Barton
155 N.E.2d 409 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Flower v. Suburban Land Co. Inc.
123 N.E.2d 218 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 N.E.2d 322, 341 Mass. 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slusarz-v-republican-publishing-co-mass-1960.