Callahan v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court

734 N.E.2d 725, 432 Mass. 1023, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 530
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedAugust 31, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 734 N.E.2d 725 (Callahan v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court) 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
Callahan v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, 734 N.E.2d 725, 432 Mass. 1023, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 530 (Mass. 2000).

Opinion

The petitioner, Elaine M. Callahan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, her petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

At the time Callahan filed her petition, there was pending in the Superior Court a civil action that she had brought against an attorney who had represented her in a prior action. Callahan’s petition sought a variety of relief with respect to the pending action: an order requiring the judge in the case to vacate a ruling he had made and thereafter to recuse himself from the case; an order requiring the Superior Court to correct the docket entries in the case; an order requiring the Superior Court session clerk to refrain from further participation in the case and in any future cases involving Callahan; an order that certain transcripts in the case and in the prior case be produced; and an order that the case files in the pending case and in the prior case be made available for copying.1

It appears that when Callahan filed her petition, the judge in the Superior Court had the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment under advisement. After the single justice denied Callahan’s petition, the Superior Court judge granted summary judgment against Callahan. Callahan appealed from the final judgment that ensued, and her appeal is currently pending in the Appeals Court.

Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was correctly denied because, among other reasons, Callahan failed to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. She offered no reason, for example, why a petition before a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., or an appeal from any adverse final judgment could not have provided the type of relief she sought. See Sinai v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dep’t, 425 Mass. 1021 (1997); Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019 (1996); Adams v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 420 Mass. 807 (1995).2

Accordingly, the judgment of the single justice is affirmed.3

So ordered.

The case was submitted on the papers filed.

Elaine M. Callahan, pro se. Stephen Dick, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

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

Related

PENNY A. JEAN v. MICHAEL SALAMONE & Another
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2025
Tavares v. Commonwealth
89 N.E.3d 1168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2018)
Donald v. Commonwealth
770 N.E.2d 471 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2002)
Fuentes v. Commonwealth
767 N.E.2d 549 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
734 N.E.2d 725, 432 Mass. 1023, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-superior-court-department-of-the-trial-court-mass-2000.