DiVenuti v. Reardon

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• DiVenuti’s property was a business property which barred him from filing claim under section nine and required him to proceed with claim under section 11
• business plaintiff could not sue under §9 and therefore could not rely on violation of Chapter 176D alone to establish claim
• “Among the good reasons [ ] for which a motion to amend may be denied are that no justification for the lateness of the motion is apparent (beyond counsel for the moving party having had a late dawning idea

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).