O'HANLEY v. Ninety-Nine, Inc. (1981)
green
· 51 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 18 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198220042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Christopher v. Father's Huddle Café, Inc. (2003)
Co., 363 Mass. 324, 327 (1973); Pucci v. Amherst Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 785 ; O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 68 (1981) (“the question of the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury is one for the jury”).
“the question of the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury is one for the jury”
In O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 65 (1981), the Appeals Court held that an inebriated customer could bring suit on his own behalf for injuries he sustained after a bartender served him alcoholic beverages while he was obviously intoxicated.
green
Stock v. Fife (1982)
Taking the undisputed facts and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 68 (1981), we examine the record 3 to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact which could properly be tried, or whether Driscoll was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
green
Turk v. Town of Westborough (2011)
Enter Inc., 33 Mass.App.Ct. 779, 785 (1992), rev. denied, 414 Mass. 1103 (1993); O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass.App.Ct. 64, 68 (1981) (“[T]he question of the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury is one for the jury”).
“[T]he question of the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury is one for the jury”
green
Delaney v. Reynolds (2005)
See also Roberts v. Southwick, 415 Mass. at 473-474 ; O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 68-69 (1981).
green
Johnson v. R.E.N., Inc. (2004)
In O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine Inc., 12 Mass.App.Ct. 64, 65 (1981), consumption of fifteen beers and six martinis permitted an inference of obvious intoxication, while in Kirby v. LeDisco, 34 Mass.App.Ct., 630, 632 (1993), consumption of eight beers was held to be insufficient to create an inference of obvious intoxication.
green
Westerback v. Harold F. LeClair Co. (2000)
One is where injuries result from the acts of drunken patrons on the premises, whether the drunk inflicts the injuries, as in Wood v. Ray-Al Café, Inc., 349 Mass. 766, 766 (1965); Carey v. New Yorker of Worcester, Inc., 355 Mass. at 451-452 ; and Sweenor v. 162 State St., Inc., 361 Mass. 524, 525-527 (1972); or is himself the injured party, as in O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 68-69 (1981).
green
Kirby v. Le Disco, Inc. (1993)
The consumption of approximately eight beers over a period of about two hours, absent any other evidence of Gillen’s conduct while in Chevy’s, is too far removed from O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 65 (1981), where the consumption of “at least fifteen Heineken beers and six martinis” was sufficient to permit a rational juror to conclude that the plaintiff would have displayed “some outward manifestation of intoxication.” Also contrast Cimino, supra at 3…
green
Mitcheson v. Izdepski (1992)
See Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc., 353 Mass. 498, 500-501 (1968); O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 69 (1981).
green
Cuevas v. Royal D'Iberville Hotel (1986)
O'Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. 64, 66-67, 421 N.E.2d 1217, 1219 (1981).
green
McGuiggan v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1986)
O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 69 (1981).
green
McGuiggan v. NEW ENGLAND TEL. & TEL. CO. PEABODY (1986)
O'Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 69 (1981).
green
Cormier v. Grant (1982)
Furthermore, evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff “is to be weighed by the jury in determining the percentages of negligence to be assigned to the plaintiff and the defendant.” O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 68-69 (1981).
green
Lyons v. Nasby (1989)
See, e.g., O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass.App. 64 , 421 N.E.2d 1217, 1219-20 (1981); Majors v. Brodhead Hotel, 416 Pa. 265, 267 , 205 A.2d 873, 875 (1965).
green
ERIC SALMONSEN v. ERIN HUBBELL & Another. (2024)
Compare Kirby v. Le Disco, Inc., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 630, 632 (1993) (consumption of eight beers over two hours insufficient to allow jury to infer that individual visibly intoxicated), with O'Hanley v. Ninety- Nine Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 69 (1981) (consumption of fifteen beers and six martinis sufficient to infer that individual "would have displayed some outward manifestation of intoxication").
consumption of fifteen beers and six martinis sufficient to infer that individual "would have displayed some outward manifestation of intoxication"
green
Makynen v. Mustakangas (1995)
Compare Kirby v. LeDisco, Inc., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 630, 632 (1993) (eight to twelve beers insufficient), with O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 69 (1981) (fifteen beers and six martinis), and Cimino v. Milford Keg., Inc., 385 Mass. 323, 328 (1982) (six or more “White Russians”), cases in which the amount of alcohol consumed was held sufficient to put the server on notice that the customer was intoxicated.
fifteen beers and six martinis
green
Michnik-Zilberman v. Gordon's Liquor, Inc. (1982)
See, e.g., O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. at 68 , where we held that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was a question for the jury.
green
Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc. (1982)
See O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 64 (1981) (proximate causation of injuries to drunken patron injured while dancing on the bar).
proximate causation of injuries to drunken patron injured while dancing on the bar