Tutein v. Hurley
Tutein v. Hurley
98 Mass. 211
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hayes v. Arlette Apartments, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1960)
- A & A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake (Okla. 1948)
- Milbury v. Turner Centre System (Mass. 1931)
- Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Holland (Okla. 1915)
- Patterson v. Seals (Okla. 1915)
- Clark v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. (Kan. 1915)
- Hartnett v. Boston Store (Ill. App. Ct. 1914)
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Hess (Okla. 1912)
- Bannon v. The Pennsylvania Railroad (Pa. Super. Ct. 1905)
- Nickey v. Steuder (Ind. 1905)
- Stone v. Boston & Albany Railroad (Mass. 1898)
- Tasker v. Stanley (Mass. 1891)
- Smith v. Osborn (Mass. 1887)
- Christy v. Hughes (Mo. Ct. App. 1887)
- Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v. Worcester & Nashua Railroad (N.H. 1882)
- Walkley v. Bostwick (Mich. 1882)
- State ex rel. Kearney v. Finn (Mo. Ct. App. 1882)
- Billman v. Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad (Ind. 1881)
- Jewell v. Grand Trunk Railway (N.H. 1874)
- Lake v. Atlantic Works (Mass. 1872)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The injury to the plaintiff’s property was not caused by the act of the defendants in any such sense as to render them liable in this action. The most that can be said is that their act remotely contributed to the accident. But, to support an action, it must appear that the proximate cause of the injury was the misfeasance of the defendants.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.