Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 8/5/1993

Flood v. Southland Corp.

Citations

616 N.E.2d 1068
416 Mass. 62
1993 Mass. LEXIS 513

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).

Judges: Wilkins, Abrams, Nolan, Lynch, O'Connor, Greaney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

81 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Flood v. Southland Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.