Board of Directors of the Worcester Free Public Library v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Board of Directors of the Worcester Free Public Library v. Attorney General

406 N.E.2d 1051, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1248

DecidedJuly 14, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 406 N.E.2d 1051 (Board of Directors of the Worcester Free Public Library v. Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Directors of the Worcester Free Public Library v. Attorney General, 406 N.E.2d 1051, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1248 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The principal case. On the record before us, the Probate Court was within its discretion in refusing to permit the appellants to intervene pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b), 365 Mass. 770 (1974) (permissive intervention), for the purpose of relitigating the merits of the case more than eleven months after final judgment had been entered on December 28, 1978. Matter of Carson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 665, 669-670 (1978), S.C. sub nom. Adoption of a Minor, 378 Mass. 793 (1979). Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (requiring “timely application”). See Black v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 500 F.2d 407, 408 (4th Cir. 1974); Nevilles v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commn., 511 F.2d 303, 305-306 (8th Cir. 1975); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Corporacion Hotelera de Puerto Rico, 516 F.2d 1047, 1049-1050 (1st Cir. 1975). See generally, 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1913, 1916 (1972).

2. The companion case. This taxpayers’ action brought on November 28, 1979, solely pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 3(10), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 62, was properly dismissed. “ [Ljeave of court,” as required by § 3(10), was not obtained in the Probate Court or in the Supreme Judicial Court, which had transferred (G. L. c. 211, § 4A) the action (including a “Motion for Leave” which was never allowed) to the Probate Court for disposition.

Judgments affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. The principal case. On the record before us, the Probate Court was within its discretion in refusing to permit the appellants to intervene pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b), 365 Mass. 770 (1974) (permissive intervention), for the purpose of relitigating the merits of the case more than eleven months after final judgment had been entered on December 28, 1978. Matter of Carson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 665, 669-670 (1978), S.C. sub nom. Adoption of a Minor, 378 Mass. 793 (1979). Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (requiring “timely application”). See Black v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 500 F.2d 407, 408 (4th Cir. 1974); Nevilles v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commn., 511 F.2d 303, 305-306 (8th Cir. 1975); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Corporacion Hotelera de Puerto Rico, 516 F.2d 1047, 1049-1050 (1st Cir. 1975). See generally, 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1913, 1916 (1972).

2. The companion case. This taxpayers’ action brought on November 28, 1979, solely pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 3(10), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 62, was properly dismissed. “ [Ljeave of court,” as required by § 3(10), was not obtained in the Probate Court or in the Supreme Judicial Court, which had transferred (G. L. c. 211, § 4A) the action (including a “Motion for Leave” which was never allowed) to the Probate Court for disposition.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 1051, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-directors-of-the-worcester-free-public-library-v-attorney-general-massappct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack