McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Citation
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Parent Document
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-04-08
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
Full Text
1,005 charsUnder the doctrine of verbal completeness, when one party introduces a written or verbal statement, “the other party may add what has been omitted to give a full picture.” Kobayashi v. Orion Ventures, Inc., 42 Mass. App. Ct. 492, 498 (1997). The judge’s decision to exclude the additional deposition testimony was within her discretion. The plaintiff’s counsel read the next several lines of the deposition following those offered by the defendant. This testimony, establishing that the plaintiff had problems with the work order system, was sufficient to complete the “full picture” as raised by cross-examination. See id. The portion excluded by the judge appeared a number of pages later in the deposition transcript, and the record does not reflect that the additional proffered testimony explained further the picture painted by defense counsel. See id. at 497 (“[Verbal completeness doctrine] does not open the gate for everything in a document or statement. There is always the test of relevance”).