Dickey v. Inspectional Servs. Dep't of Bos.

120 N.E.3d 1179, 482 Mass. 1003
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 11, 2019
DocketSJC-12613
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 120 N.E.3d 1179 (Dickey v. Inspectional Servs. Dep't of Bos.) 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
Dickey v. Inspectional Servs. Dep't of Bos., 120 N.E.3d 1179, 482 Mass. 1003 (Mass. 2019).

Opinion

Finally, even apart from the question of Dickey's lack of standing, we note that G. L. c. 211, § 3, is generally not an appropriate avenue to challenge an order appointing a receiver. Rather, such orders are immediately appealable to the Appeals Court under the doctrine of present execution. See, e.g., Albre v. Sinclair Constr. Co., 345 Mass. 712, 712-713, 189 N.E.2d 563 (1963) ; Wax v. Monks, 327 Mass. 1, 2-3, 96 N.E.2d 704 (1951) ; New England Theatres, Inc. v. Olympia Theatres, Inc., 287 Mass. 485, 490, 192 N.E. 93 (1934), cert. denied sub nom. E.M. Loew's, Inc. v. New England Theatres, Inc., 294 U.S. 713, 55 S.Ct. 509, 79 L.Ed. 1247 (1935).

For all of these reasons, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

One World, LLC v. Manolakos
D. Massachusetts, 2025
Shaik v. Williams
E.D. Oklahoma, 2024
Shaik v. Mordy
E.D. Oklahoma, 2024
Wilbur v. Tunnell
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 N.E.3d 1179, 482 Mass. 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickey-v-inspectional-servs-dept-of-bos-mass-2019.