Bragg v. Labor Relations Commission

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bragg v. Labor Relations Commission

790 N.E.2d 646, 439 Mass. 1012, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 459

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 26, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 790 N.E.2d 646 (Bragg v. Labor Relations Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bragg v. Labor Relations Commission, 790 N.E.2d 646, 439 Mass. 1012, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 459 (Mass. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Reggie Bragg appeals from the denial of his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Bragg’s petition — which consists of a single page containing only broad, unsubstantiated allegations — is fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. First, Bragg failed to satisfy his burden of creating a record sufficient to substantiate his allegations: there was no record before the single justice. See Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000) (petitioner must demonstrate, not merely allege, violation of substantive right). Second, he failed to demonstrate that he could not obtain his requested relief through some other adequate and effective.means. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006, 1006 (1996), and cases cited (petition properly denied where plaintiff could have appealed to Appeals Court panel from Appeals Court single justice’s denial of motion to have appeal docketed late). Indeed, it was not at all clear what relief Bragg was seeking.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Reggie Bragg appeals from the denial of his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Bragg’s petition — which consists of a single page containing only broad, unsubstantiated allegations — is fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. First, Bragg failed to satisfy his burden of creating a record sufficient to substantiate his allegations: there was no record before the single justice. See Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000) (petitioner must demonstrate, not merely allege, violation of substantive right). Second, he failed to demonstrate that he could not obtain his requested relief through some other adequate and effective.means. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006, 1006 (1996), and cases cited (petition properly denied where plaintiff could have appealed to Appeals Court panel from Appeals Court single justice’s denial of motion to have appeal docketed late). Indeed, it was not at all clear what relief Bragg was seeking.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

790 N.E.2d 646, 439 Mass. 1012, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bragg-v-labor-relations-commission-mass-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack