Doten v. Plymouth Division of the Probate & Family Court Department

479 N.E.2d 130, 395 Mass. 1001, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1553
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 10, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 479 N.E.2d 130 (Doten v. Plymouth Division of the Probate & Family Court Department) 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
Doten v. Plymouth Division of the Probate & Family Court Department, 479 N.E.2d 130, 395 Mass. 1001, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1553 (Mass. 1985).

Opinion

The plaintiff also maintains that he will be prejudiced by appearing before the judge in any other proceeding related to this divorce case that might occur in the future. The single justice did not agree, however, and his disposition of matters on a petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Palaza v. Superior Court, 393 Mass. 1001, 1002 (1984); Commonwealth v. Yelle, 390 Mass. 678, 686 (1984). The plaintiff has failed to establish that the single justice has abused his discretion in this case by denying the claims for relief.

Bruce E. Doten, pro se. Leonard G. Learner, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the single justice should have recused himself from ruling on the petition. He also alleges that he did not receive sufficient notice of the hearing before the single justice to prepare adequately. These two new issues were never raised before the single justice, and we therefore do not address them now (see Albert v. Municipal Court of the City of Boston, 388 Mass. 491, 493-494 [1983]), except to state that they do not form the basis of any meritorious claim.

The judgment of the single justice is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

Related

Jian Jiang v. Qilun Liu
114 N.E.3d 938 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
Myrick v. Superior Court Department
94 N.E.3d 838 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2018)
Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth
477 Mass. 1001 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2017)
Johnson v. Commonwealth
977 N.E.2d 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2012)
Culley v. Cato
460 Mass. 1009 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2011)
Mani v. United Bank
458 Mass. 1027 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2011)
Picciotto v. Appeals Court
457 Mass. 1001 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2010)
Abraham v. Bates
451 Mass. 1013 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Ewing v. Commonwealth
885 N.E.2d 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Liu v. Moynihan
884 N.E.2d 985 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Picciotto v. Chief Justice of the Superior Court
446 Mass. 1015 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)
Bloise v. Bloise
770 N.E.2d 472 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2002)
Picciotto v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court
763 N.E.2d 53 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
479 N.E.2d 130, 395 Mass. 1001, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doten-v-plymouth-division-of-the-probate-family-court-department-mass-1985.