Due to the fact that the plaintiff brought about the conference between representatives from each of the two sides, that individual was entitled to a broker’s commission following that sale of a television station. 

Specific performance was properly granted; the defendant is bound by the actions of its agent.

It was not possible to pursue both a bill of exceptions, and an appeal, as methods of review. The plaintiff was not barred from recovery by the common employment doctrine.

Sugarman attorneys represented a state trooper who was catastrophically injured after being struck by a car, which was registered to Quisset Properties and insured by Quincy Mutual. Quincy Mutual denied coverage for the state trooper’s injury claims on the basis that it’s insured (Quisset) failed to provide Quincy Mutual with necessary information about its business, and as a result, was in breach of the insurance contract. Sugarman attorneys intervened on behalf of Quisset, and successfully argued on appeal that the insurance policy applied. As a result, they were able to obtain a sizable settlement for the state trooper from two insurers, one of which was Quincy Mutua.

In an action for libel against an agency that produced a credit report to an interested party, the defendant forfeited its conditional privilege as a result of false statements that were made recklessly were in the report.

The case was remanded to the Superior Court to determine whether the defendant’s commodities, which were sold at retail, were in fair and open competition with other similar commodities.