From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russo v. Star Market Co., Inc.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Apr 28, 1978
375 N.E.2d 344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)

Opinion

April 28, 1978.

Henry F. Furman for the defendant.


1. We do not consider the ground now urged by the defendant in support of its motion for a directed verdict because that ground was not stated in the motion or otherwise brought to the attention of the trial judge when the motion was presented to him at the close of all the evidence. Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(a), 365 Mass. 814 (1974). Moy v. Jack Madden Ford Sales, Inc., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 102, 107-108 (1976). Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 386-387 n. 1 (1976), rev'd on other grounds, 373 Mass. 96 (1977). Parslow v. Pilgrim Parking, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 822 (1977). 2. Our declination in that respect deprives the defendant's second point of any significance. 3. The third point has not been argued within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14 (1958).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Russo v. Star Market Co., Inc.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Apr 28, 1978
375 N.E.2d 344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
Case details for

Russo v. Star Market Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DORA RUSSO vs. STAR MARKET Co., INC

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Apr 28, 1978

Citations

375 N.E.2d 344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
6 Mass. App. Ct. 875

Citing Cases

Zeller v. American Safety Razor Corp.

G.L.c. 231, § 113. 6. The only such point of any substance is the question whether the evidence was…

Riseberg v. Dalzell Ford Sales, Inc.

Nor do we consider the ground now urged by the defendant in support of the motion for a directed verdict…