Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Green v. Richmond - 369 Mass. 47, 337 N.E.2d 691 (1975)

Rule:

Evidence admissible for one purpose, if offered for that purpose in good faith, is not made inadmissible by the fact that it could not be used for another with regard to which it has a tendency to influence the mind. In determining whether the evidence offered serves any valid purpose the court applies the rule that it must merely render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. Relevant evidence should be admitted unless there is a quite satisfactory reason for excluding it.

Facts:

The decedent made a deal with plaintiff girlfriend that if she would stay with him, he would bequeath his entire estate to her at his death. Plaintiff initiated the action in quantum meruit against the executor of the will of the decedent to recover for services rendered in reliance on the decedent’s oral agreement. The trial court awarded money to the plaintiff. The trial court also denied the executor's motion for a directed verdict and allowed evidence of the value of the decedent's estate as represented by the probate inventory. The executor appealed, arguing that it was error to deny his motion for a new trial because of excessive damages. 

Issue:

  1. Did the trial court err denying the executor’s motion for a directed verdict? 
  2. Was it proper to use the probate inventory in valuing the decedent’s estate? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed that the trial court had properly denied the executor's motion for a directed verdict. According to the court, the evidence revealed that the sexual aspect of the relationship between the plaintiff and the decedent was no part of the bargain between the two, and no more than incidental to their relationship. The court, however, held that a new trial on the issue of damages was required. The court reasoned that evidence of the value of the decedent's estate was admissible, but the probate inventory was not a reliable way to measure what that value was.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates