Cassidy v. City of Newton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cassidy v. City of Newton

386 Mass. 1002

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 8, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 386 Mass. 1002 (Cassidy v. City of Newton) 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

Cassidy v. City of Newton, 386 Mass. 1002 (Mass. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

This court is again faced with an appeal prematurely brought from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Courts. We have said repeatedly, but without much apparent success, that where a retrial in a District Court is required, as here (although only on the question of damages), after a decision of the Appellate Division, such decision is interlocutory and is not an appropriate vehicle for appeal. See Nesco Aluminum. Sales v. Scott, 385 Mass. 1002 (1982), and cases cited therein.

The sole issue here is whether the plaintiffs, firefighters for the defendant, who were injured in the performance of duty and who have been receiving compensation under G. L. c. 41, § 111F, are also entitled to vacation pay. We have examined the record and are satisfied that the Appellate Division’s decision is correct, holding as it did that the case is governed entirely by and is indistinguishable (in all material matters) from Carvalho v. Cambridge, 372 Mass. 464 (1977), which held that injured parties like the plaintiffs herein are entitled to vacation pay.

Appeal dismissed.

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

This court is again faced with an appeal prematurely brought from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Courts. We have said repeatedly, but without much apparent success, that where a retrial in a District Court is required, as here (although only on the question of damages), after a decision of the Appellate Division, such decision is interlocutory and is not an appropriate vehicle for appeal. See Nesco Aluminum. Sales v. Scott, 385 Mass. 1002 (1982), and cases cited therein.

The sole issue here is whether the plaintiffs, firefighters for the defendant, who were injured in the performance of duty and who have been receiving compensation under G. L. c. 41, § 111F, are also entitled to vacation pay. We have examined the record and are satisfied that the Appellate Division’s decision is correct, holding as it did that the case is governed entirely by and is indistinguishable (in all material matters) from Carvalho v. Cambridge, 372 Mass. 464 (1977), which held that injured parties like the plaintiffs herein are entitled to vacation pay.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 Mass. 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-city-of-newton-mass-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack