Leavitt v. Mizner

25 Citing cases

  1. Greenspun v. Boghossian

    95 Mass. App. Ct. 335 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    Silva, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 420, 75 N.E.3d 1132. See Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88-92, 533 N.E.2d 1334 (1989) (deciding, as matter of law, that attorney's alleged negligence could not have caused harm); Fishman, 396 Mass. at 650, 487 N.E.2d 1377, citing Perry v. Medeiros, 369 Mass. 836, 842, 343 N.E.2d 859 (1976) (expert testimony on existence of ethical violation is improper as judge can instruct regarding requirements of ethical rules). "[I]f causation depends on a legal ruling" in the underlying action, then "the issue usually presents a question of law."

  2. Magarian v. Hawkins

    321 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2003)   Cited 24 times
    In Magarian, by contrast, the district court granted summary judgment following the close of discovery, after the plaintiffs presumably had ample opportunity to gather evidence in support of their complaint.

    Although the question of breach is ordinarily for the trier of fact, it may be appropriately withdrawn where the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom lead to but one reasoned conclusion. Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47, 56, 449 N.E.2d 331 (1983); Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88-92, 533 N.E.2d 1334 (1989). Our review of the briefs and the record convinces us that this is such a case: a fair-minded jury could not reasonably conclude that Hawkins's conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances.

  3. Kiribati Seafood Co. v. Dechert Llp.

    478 Mass. 111 (Mass. 2017)   Cited 37 times

    Our review of a motion judge's decision on summary judgment is de novo, because we examine the same record and decide the same questions of law. See Global NAPs, Inc. v. Awiszus, 457 Mass. 489, 499 n.16, 930 N.E.2d 1262 (2010) ; Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88, 533 N.E.2d 1334 (1989) ; Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002).The central issue in this case is the relationship between attorney malpractice and judicial error, more specifically, the circumstances under which an attorney should be relieved of liability for professional negligence where the attorney's negligent act or omission precedes judicial error.

  4. Global Naps, Inc. v. Awiszus

    457 Mass. 489 (Mass. 2010)   Cited 51 times
    Explaining that the MCAD is responsible for enforcing the Massachusetts Parental Leave Act

    The issue whether an attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of a client's loss may be resolved at the summary judgment stage. See Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88-92 (1989); Girardi v. Gabriel, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 553, 558-559 (1995). The defendants have not challenged the fact that they had an attorney-client relationship with Global during the time that the notice of appeal in the Stephens litigation should have been filed, or the fact that such notice was untimely filed.

  5. Wojcicki v. Caragher

    447 Mass. 200 (Mass. 2006)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that false testimony, alone, does not support finding of fraud on court without evidence of more "egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself"

    Evidence is considered "newly discovered" in this context only if it was "unknown and unavailable at the lime of trial despite the diligence of the moving party." Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 89 (1989), quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 399 Mass. 60, 64 (1987). DeLuca v. Boston Elevated Ry., 312 Mass. 495, 497 (1942).

  6. Shenker v. DeJesus

    432 Mass. 1019 (Mass. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    First, we note that the petitioners are aware of the availability of an alternative avenue for seeking relief, that provided by G.L.c. 231, § 118, first par., for they claim to have sought relief thereunder. See generally Leavitt v. Minzer, 404 Mass. 81, 83-88 (1989). Moreover, although the denial of their motion for partial summary judgment might not be reviewable on appeal following a trial on the merits, the legal issue identified by the judge in denying the petitioners' motion, whether designated statutory language may be applied retroactively to certain causes of action, may be reviewed on appeal. See Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. Spencer Press, Inc., supra ("The merits of a claim are better tested on appeal on the record as it exists after an evidentiary trial than on the record . . . at the time the motion for summary judgment was denied").

  7. Doe v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

    423 Mass. 366 (Mass. 1996)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no duty to defend for a "negligence claim which is premised on the same acts which are contended to be the basis of an intentional sexual misconduct claim"

    Nevertheless, because we must decide in connection with Liberty Mutual's appeal whether the denial of its motion for summary judgment was proper, we consider the plaintiff's appeal as well. Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 83 (1989). The parties dispute whether the plaintiff's claim is governed by G.L.c. 93A, § 9 or § 11, since the claim is based in whole or in part on an assignment by another insurance company.

  8. Fairneny v. Savogran Company

    422 Mass. 469 (Mass. 1996)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that, on motion to dismiss, court must accept ast true complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations and any reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor that may be drawn therefrom"

    A single justice of the Appeals Court properly allowed the defendant to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss. See Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 87-88 (1989). We conclude that the plaintiffs' claims are preempted by ERISA, and that the defendant was entitled to judgment on the basis of its motion to dismiss.

  9. Beal v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham

    419 Mass. 535 (Mass. 1995)   Cited 141 times
    Concluding that plaintiff who was discharged as police officer has no reasonable expectation of demonstrating that she is "qualified handicapped person" under G. L. c. 151B "[b]ecause police officers are responsible for public safety, and the plaintiff's handicap severely compromises her capability to ensure the general safety of the public"

    "The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). See Yakubowicz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 404 Mass. 624, 626 (1989); Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88 (1989); Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 16-17 (1989). We may consider any ground supporting the judgment.

  10. Judson v. Essex Agricultural Technical Institute

    635 N.E.2d 1172 (Mass. 1994)   Cited 17 times

    Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). See Yakubowicz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 404 Mass. 624, 626 (1989); Leavitt v. Mizner, 404 Mass. 81, 88 (1989); Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 16-17 (1989). We may consider any ground supporting the judgment.