Foote v. Process Equipment Co.

231 N.E.2d 574, 353 Mass. 755
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 30, 1967·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing a report from the District Court judge who refused to allow a motion for postponement filed under Rule 15 of the Rules of the District Courts (1965). The opinion of the Appellate Division recites that: “ [t]he decision as to whether or not a case shall be tried when reached or continued for hearing at a later time rests within sound judicial discretion. Morgan v. Steele 242 Mass. 217 and cases cited.” This is obviously a correct statement of the law. The Appellate Division opinion also discusses the aforementioned Rule 15. We see no need for any further discussion. There was no error.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

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

Foote v. Process Equipment Co., 231 N.E.2d 574, 353 Mass. 755 (Mass. 1967).

231 N.E.2d 574 (Foote v. Process Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Box Pond Ass'n v. Energy Facilities Siting Board
435 Mass. 408 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2001)
Kalus v. Thompson Club Unit Owners' Trust
1993 Mass. App. Div. 6 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1993)
Von Thaden v. Villate
1989 Mass. App. Div. 44 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1989)
Pacella Development Corp. v. Ruscitto
277 N.E.2d 292 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Willametz v. Collina
40 Mass. App. Dec. 66 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1968)