Dowd v. Town of Dedham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Dowd v. Town of Dedham

795 N.E.2d 572, 440 Mass. 1007, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 639

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 795 N.E.2d 572 (Dowd v. Town of Dedham) 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

Dowd v. Town of Dedham, 795 N.E.2d 572, 440 Mass. 1007, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 639 (Mass. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner, Thomas F. Dowd, filed a document entitled “Pro Se Appellant’s Verified Emergency Appeal," which a single justice of this court treated as a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition and denied without a hearing. On appeal, the [1008]*1008petitioner asks tins court to determine that a town official violated G. L. c. 56, § 12, and to order the Attorney General to “convene” a grand jury to seek an indictment against the official for violation of that statute. Not only was this relief not requested in the petition filed with the single justice, see Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002), but the petitioner alleges no abuse of discretion or other error by the single justice in the judgment rendered on the specific claims that were before her. Indeed, the petitioner’s brief on appeal fails to include any meaningful argument in support of either the claims that were before the single justice or the claims that he now presses before the full court. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1012 (1998).

Thomas F. Dowd, pro se. Joyce Frank, for the defendants, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner, Thomas F. Dowd, filed a document entitled “Pro Se Appellant’s Verified Emergency Appeal," which a single justice of this court treated as a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition and denied without a hearing. On appeal, the [1008]*1008petitioner asks tins court to determine that a town official violated G. L. c. 56, § 12, and to order the Attorney General to “convene” a grand jury to seek an indictment against the official for violation of that statute. Not only was this relief not requested in the petition filed with the single justice, see Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002), but the petitioner alleges no abuse of discretion or other error by the single justice in the judgment rendered on the specific claims that were before her. Indeed, the petitioner’s brief on appeal fails to include any meaningful argument in support of either the claims that were before the single justice or the claims that he now presses before the full court. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1012 (1998).

Thomas F. Dowd, pro se. Joyce Frank, for the defendants, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 N.E.2d 572, 440 Mass. 1007, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowd-v-town-of-dedham-mass-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack