Massachusetts Appeals Court· 8/18/1989

Tibbitts v. Wisniewski

Citations

542 N.E.2d 320
27 Mass. App. Ct. 729
1989 Mass. App. LEXIS 509

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the plaintiff was under the mistaken impression that case law did not require him to respond to the defendant’s request for discovery
“time limits on a [b][l] or [b][3] motion may not be extended by the expedient of bringing it under [b][6]”
inexcusable unprofessional conduct by party’s attorney causing adverse judgment against him does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance justifying relief under the “extremely narrow and meagre scope” of rule 60[b][6]
“Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discovery with a reply”
“Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discoveiy with a reply”
“Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discovery with a reply”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dreben, Kass, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

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.