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

120 N.E.3d 1179, 482 Mass. 1003
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 11, 2019·No. SJC-12613·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

120 N.E.3d 1179 (Dickey v. Inspectional Servs. Dep't of Bos.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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