Flood v. Southland Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that there can be circumstances under which no postcharge objection is required
• rejecting “hard and fast approach” of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which requires, under similar Federal rule, that all relevant events occur after charge is given
• defendant’s argument that it owed no duty to plaintiff failed where evidence showed that criminal act came within reasonably foreseeable risk of harm
• ―Substantially more than one-half of the States have adopted rules of evidence similar to Fed. R. Evid. 803 (22).‖
• “Cautious counsel, however, wisely will renew any earlier objection with specificity after the charge unless the judge then instructs otherwise”
• as intentional tortious conduct cannot be negligent conduct under Massachusetts comparative negligence statute, remanding for determination of whether defendant's stabbing of plaintiff in parking lot of co-defendant/convenience store was intentional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Flood v. Southland Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Flood v. Southland Corp.
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1992-09-15· cited 19×
• Flood v. Southland Corp.
  Massachusetts Superior Court· 1996-01-18