DiBiase v. DiBiase

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DiBiase v. DiBiase

666 N.E.2d 1300, 423 Mass. 1003, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 156

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 666 N.E.2d 1300 (DiBiase v. DiBiase) 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

DiBiase v. DiBiase, 666 N.E.2d 1300, 423 Mass. 1003, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 156 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from a denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.). The defendants had initially petitioned a single justice of the Appeals Court for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. (1994 ed.), which was denied. Because this denial concerned an underlying interlocutory order by a Probate and Family Court judge, rule 2:21 is applicable. The defendants, however, have failed to show why appellate review after a final judgment would not be adequate. They argue that, because an adverse judgment in the Probate Court is not automatically stayed, they will be irreparably harmed by the deprivation of their assets during the pendency of an appeal. This argument fails to address why the substantive error allegedly committed by the single justice of the Appeals Court and the Probate Court judge cannot be remedied on appeal. Any party in a Probate Court proceeding can assert the sort of harm described by the defendants, and therefore it does not provide a basis for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

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

This is an appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from a denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.). The defendants had initially petitioned a single justice of the Appeals Court for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. (1994 ed.), which was denied. Because this denial concerned an underlying interlocutory order by a Probate and Family Court judge, rule 2:21 is applicable. The defendants, however, have failed to show why appellate review after a final judgment would not be adequate. They argue that, because an adverse judgment in the Probate Court is not automatically stayed, they will be irreparably harmed by the deprivation of their assets during the pendency of an appeal. This argument fails to address why the substantive error allegedly committed by the single justice of the Appeals Court and the Probate Court judge cannot be remedied on appeal. Any party in a Probate Court proceeding can assert the sort of harm described by the defendants, and therefore it does not provide a basis for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 N.E.2d 1300, 423 Mass. 1003, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibiase-v-dibiase-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack