green
Positive treatment
10.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jelmoli Holding, Inc. v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
Whether, if there had been no ‘subrogation agreements,’ the equitable doctrine of subrogation of an insurer who is an indemnitor would have produced substantially the same result we need not consider.” Id. at 973. 5 *21 In Blue Cross of Mass., Inc. v. Travaline, 398 Mass. 582 , 499 N.E.2d 1195 (1986), the same court distinguished General Exchange, noting that no portion of the settlement paid to the attorney was earmarked as funds payable to the insurer’s subrogation claim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ward v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.
Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 , 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (1944); 16 Couch on Ins. § 60:41.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael A. Ward Kimberly Ward v. Allied Van Lines, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Academy, Incorporated, D/B/A Academy Moving & Storage, D/B/A Academy/allied Moving & Storage, a California Corporation J.D. Carton & Son, Incorporated, a New Jersey Corporation Samuel Smith, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Michael A. Ward Kimberly Ward v. Allied Van Lines, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Academy, Incorporated, D/B/A Academy Moving & Storage, D/B/A Academy/allied Moving & Storage, a California Corporation J.D. Carton & Son, Incorporated, a New Jersey Corporation Samuel Smith, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Corp. v. Driscoll, 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Mass. 1944); 16 Couch on Ins. § 60:41. 11 The related rights of subrogation and reimbursement serve to protect the insurer.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Smith
The General Exchange court hinted that the attorney’s claim might have priority over the insurer’s (see General Exchange, supra, 52 N.E.2d at p. 973 [amount due insurer “may well be less” than full reimbursement amount because “of necessary and reasonable expenses and perhaps also attorney’s fees”]), but that possibility undercuts the idea of a preexisting lien which the Aguiluz case seemed to assume.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. Total Health Care, Inc.
Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360, 364-365 , 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (1944) (insurance company was subrogated to an insured’s cause of action for property damage to the insured’s car, and therefore had the “right to receive the proceeds” of any cause of action for that property damage; insured’s attorney held liable to insurer for distribut *519 ing settlement proceeds to the insured which were specifically marked as being for property damage).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
LaBarre v. Gold
General Exchange Insurance Corp. v. Driscoll, 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Mass. 1944).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. Great Southern Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 , 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hedgebeth v. Medford
(2×)
Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 , 52 N.E. 2d 970, 973 (1944); National Union Fire Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lee A. Limbs, Jr.
Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360, 365 , 52 N.E.2d 970, 973 (1944).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Klacik v. Kovacs
Corporation v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 , 52 N.E. 2d 970, 973 (Sup. Jud.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles H. Stevens & another
v.
Grace N. Drugg & others
v.
Grace N. Drugg & others
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Dec 8, 1943.
H. A. Gregg, (W. H. McLaughlin with him,) for the respondents., J. P. Cleary, (A. B. McGregor with him,) for the petitioners.
Published
Order denying jury issues affirmed. This is an appeal from an order of the Probate Court, in the matter of the alleged will of Fred F. Swett, late of Haverhill, denying a motion by the contestants for the framing of issues for trial by a jury. The argument in behalf of the contestants is now directed only to the issue of testamentary capacity. Upon consideration of the statements of expected evidence — which need not be recited — in the light of the established principles of law governing the framing of such issues and review on appeal after action of the Probate Court on motions for the framing of such issues — which have been frequently stated and need not be restated — including recognition of the element of discretion vested in the probate judge, we conclude that there was no error in the denial of this motion. See Hannon v. Gorman, 296 Mass. 437.