Baudanza v. Comcast, 454 Mass. 622 (2009), The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment in favor of SUGARMAN's client following a jury verdict and post-trial motions by SUGARMAN that led the trial judge to award a substantial increase to damages found by jury.  The client sustained severe injuries when his vehicle was struck by a cable company truck.

Tryon v. City of Lowell, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 720 (1991), The Superior Court's judgment for the defendant was overturned because the extent of the duty owed by the City to an injured child was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and the defendant could not avoid liability under the discretionary function exemption of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G. L. c. 258, §10(b)).  At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs damages for injuries to a child trespasser after his arm was run over by a train as he walked along railroad tracks on his way to school.

Sable v. Meade Johnson & Co., 737 F.Supp. 135 (D. Mass. 1990), The United States District Court decided in favor of injured patient who suffered severe complication from a drug manufactured by defendant drug company and allowed evidence at trial of post-injury warnings ordered by FDA. The case settled before the jury began deliberations.

Frutin v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 760 F. Supp 234 (D. Mass. 1990), In a case involving a mid-air collision, the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because the United States can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for failure to issue a traffic advisory. The trial that followed resulted in a jury award to SUGARMAN's client for a below-the-knee amputation suffered by a student pilot in a mid-air collision caused by a negligent air traffic controller and another pilot.