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
637 charsThe plaintiff’s counsel also argued at trial that the additional portion of the deposition, where the plaintiff had described previous instances of ice accumulation, was admissible as a “prior consistent statement where [defense counsel] rebutted it with prior inconsistent [statements] . . . it’s a hearsay exception apart from completeness.” She now claims that she was prejudiced when the judge “indicated” that counsel would not be allowed to introduce other deposition testimony on “different evidentiary grounds.” According to the plaintiff, the judge “shut down” counsel’s attempts to rehabilitate the witness. There was no error.