Dantas v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Dantas v. Commonwealth

708 N.E.2d 655, 429 Mass. 1006, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 143

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 708 N.E.2d 655 (Dantas v. Commonwealth) 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

Dantas v. Commonwealth, 708 N.E.2d 655, 429 Mass. 1006, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 143 (Mass. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Paul M. Dantas (petitioner) appeals under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. A District Court judge had denied the petitioner’s motion for discovery. The petitioner has also filed a motion to expedite, noting that the trial in the underlying proceeding is scheduled to begin on April 14, 1999.

We consider the denial of the discovery motion to be interlocutory for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and examine whether the petitioner has, as rule 2:21 (2) requires, set out reasons why review of the District Court judge’s ruling “cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” The petitioner asserts that he cannot adequately obtain review on appeal; states that the material sought is exculpatory and dispositive; refers to an opinion in which we mentioned the avoidance of participating in an unnecessary trial and the saving of unnecessary expense; and concludes that he has made the showing necessary to entitle him to relief. We consider those conclusory assertions to be inadequate as a statement of “the reasons” required by rule 2:21 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

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

Paul M. Dantas (petitioner) appeals under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. A District Court judge had denied the petitioner’s motion for discovery. The petitioner has also filed a motion to expedite, noting that the trial in the underlying proceeding is scheduled to begin on April 14, 1999.

We consider the denial of the discovery motion to be interlocutory for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and examine whether the petitioner has, as rule 2:21 (2) requires, set out reasons why review of the District Court judge’s ruling “cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” The petitioner asserts that he cannot adequately obtain review on appeal; states that the material sought is exculpatory and dispositive; refers to an opinion in which we mentioned the avoidance of participating in an unnecessary trial and the saving of unnecessary expense; and concludes that he has made the showing necessary to entitle him to relief. We consider those conclusory assertions to be inadequate as a statement of “the reasons” required by rule 2:21 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 N.E.2d 655, 429 Mass. 1006, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dantas-v-commonwealth-mass-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack