Donald Alves v. Superintendent of Buildings

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Donald Alves v. Superintendent of Buildings

296 N.E.2d 830, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 828, 1973 Mass. App. LEXIS 570

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJune 7, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 N.E.2d 830 (Donald Alves v. Superintendent of Buildings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald Alves v. Superintendent of Buildings, 296 N.E.2d 830, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 828, 1973 Mass. App. LEXIS 570 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

One reason these appeals by the respondent and the [829]*829interveners cannot succeed is that they were not claimed within twenty days of the entry of an order “decisive of the case” (G. L. c. 231, § 96),nor within twenty days of an “order decisive of the issues rendered... by the superior court” (G. L. c. 213, § ID, as amended), nor within twenty days of the time when, on a proper construction of the provisions of Rule 79 of the Superior Court (1954), the case went to “final judgment” (G. L. c. 213, § ID).

Benjamin M. Gottlieb (Ronald J. Lowenstein with him) for the interveners Alden Corrugated Container Corporation & another; Roy D. Santos, Assistant City Solicitor, for the respondent Superintendent of Buildings of New Bedford, also with him. John D. Sheehan for the petitioner.

Appeals dismissed.

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

One reason these appeals by the respondent and the [829]*829interveners cannot succeed is that they were not claimed within twenty days of the entry of an order “decisive of the case” (G. L. c. 231, § 96),nor within twenty days of an “order decisive of the issues rendered... by the superior court” (G. L. c. 213, § ID, as amended), nor within twenty days of the time when, on a proper construction of the provisions of Rule 79 of the Superior Court (1954), the case went to “final judgment” (G. L. c. 213, § ID).

Benjamin M. Gottlieb (Ronald J. Lowenstein with him) for the interveners Alden Corrugated Container Corporation & another; Roy D. Santos, Assistant City Solicitor, for the respondent Superintendent of Buildings of New Bedford, also with him. John D. Sheehan for the petitioner.

Appeals dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.E.2d 830, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 828, 1973 Mass. App. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-alves-v-superintendent-of-buildings-massappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack