Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933

Mahoney v. Norcross

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 7, 1933

284 Mass. 153; 187 N.E. 227; 1933 Mass. LEXIS 1065

Cases that cite this one

51 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

DiLuzio v. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WKRS. (Mass. 1984)
DiLuzio v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (Mass. 1984)
Adams v. Elliott (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1982)
Franco v. Marinow (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1976)
Haverhill Builders Supply, Inc. v. Ortins (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1976)
Nelson v. Judd (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1972)
Karas v. LeVay (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1967)
Martin v. Reis (Mass. 1962)
Reis v. Ronny & Dannie Corp. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1962)
Levin v. Ginsberg (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961)
Rocco v. Boston-Leader, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1959)
New York Central Railroad v. Marinucci Bros. & Co. (Mass. 1958)
Butler v. Cromartie (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1958)
Mason v. City of Boston (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1956)
Cadiero v. Joyce (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1955)
Smith v. Morrison (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1955)
Fallon v. Landers (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1954)
Dineen v. Falbo (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1954)
Capone v. Lacarbonara (Boston Municipal Court 1951)
Vlahou v. Rodopoulos (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1946)
Coughlin v. First National Stores, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1946)
London Clothes, Ltd. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (Mass. 1945)
Kliman v. Motorland, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1945)
Powers v. Macris (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1943)
Henry v. Lipman (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1943)

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

By the Court.

The case at bar falls within the general principle that in an action arising from a collision between automobiles at intersecting streets the due care and contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence, of the defendant present questions of fact. The finding in favor of the plaintiff imports a finding of all subsidiary facts essential to that conclusion and must stand unless unsupported by the evidence. Without summarizing the testimony it is enough to say that a finding in favor of the plaintiff was warranted. Ferreira v. Zaccolanti, 281 Mass. 91.

The defendant presented several requests for rulings which were refused because based on assumptions of facts not in accord with the facts found by the trial judge. It is not *154necessary to examine such requests because they are immaterial in view of the facts found. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 210 Mass. 8, 18. Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.