Buckmore v. Czelusniak Funeral Home, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Buckmore v. Czelusniak Funeral Home, Inc.

696 N.E.2d 130, 427 Mass. 1014, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 339

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 N.E.2d 130 (Buckmore v. Czelusniak Funeral Home, Inc.) 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

Buckmore v. Czelusniak Funeral Home, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 130, 427 Mass. 1014, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 339 (Mass. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

A single justice denied the petitioner’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. “This court will not reverse a single justice’s denial of a petition brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, unless the single justice abused his or her discretion or made a clear error of law.” Rogan v. Commonwealth, 415 Mass. 376, 378 (1993), citing Schipani v. Commonwealth, 382 Mass. 685 (1980).

The single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the petition. The petitioner failed to present an adequate record from which the single justice could have evaluated whether relief was appropriate. A crucial affidavit and other supporting documents were missing from the record appendix. “The burden of presenting [a] court with a record which shows the alleged error [either by the trial court or] by the single justice is on . . . the appealing [party].” Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1990), quoting Giacobbe v. First Coolidge Corp., 367 Mass. 309, 317 (1975). The fact that the appellant is a pro se litigant does not excuse him from complying with the basic requirements of appellate procedure. Brossard v. West Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 417 Mass. 183, 184 (1994), and cases cited.

The judgment of the single justice denying the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is hereby affirmed.

So ordered.

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

A single justice denied the petitioner’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. “This court will not reverse a single justice’s denial of a petition brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, unless the single justice abused his or her discretion or made a clear error of law.” Rogan v. Commonwealth, 415 Mass. 376, 378 (1993), citing Schipani v. Commonwealth, 382 Mass. 685 (1980).

The single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the petition. The petitioner failed to present an adequate record from which the single justice could have evaluated whether relief was appropriate. A crucial affidavit and other supporting documents were missing from the record appendix. “The burden of presenting [a] court with a record which shows the alleged error [either by the trial court or] by the single justice is on . . . the appealing [party].” Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1990), quoting Giacobbe v. First Coolidge Corp., 367 Mass. 309, 317 (1975). The fact that the appellant is a pro se litigant does not excuse him from complying with the basic requirements of appellate procedure. Brossard v. West Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 417 Mass. 183, 184 (1994), and cases cited.

The judgment of the single justice denying the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is hereby affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 N.E.2d 130, 427 Mass. 1014, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckmore-v-czelusniak-funeral-home-inc-mass-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack