Donnarumma v. Boston Housing Authority

682 N.E.2d 1344, 425 Mass. 1024, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 232
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided August 15, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Rule 2:21 (2) requires that “the appellant ... set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” Although the petitioner devoted a portion of her memorandum of law to contending that “Relief Cannot Wait For the Normal Course of Appeal,” she has not explained why relief from the denial of her request for “injunctive relief” could not be obtained on an expedited basis under G. L. c. 231, § 118, second par.; or that relief under Mass. R. A. P. 6 (a), as amended, 378 Mass. 930 (1979), was not available. Moreover, she has not demonstrated that she is entitled to appellate review of the denial of her request for “an emergency restraining order.” See Royal Dynasty, Inc. v. Chin, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 171, 172 (1994).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Donnarumma v. Boston Housing Authority, 682 N.E.2d 1344, 425 Mass. 1024, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 232 (Mass. 1997).

682 N.E.2d 1344 (Donnarumma v. Boston Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arsenault v. Franzone
430 Mass. 1007 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1999)