Frontera v. City of Somerville

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Frontera v. City of Somerville

735 N.E.2d 1246, 432 Mass. 1027, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 616

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 735 N.E.2d 1246 (Frontera v. City of Somerville) 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

Frontera v. City of Somerville, 735 N.E.2d 1246, 432 Mass. 1027, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 616 (Mass. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Josephine Frontera (petitioner) appeals pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

We assume, without deciding, that for purposes of determining the applicability of rule 2:21 (1), the petitioner had sought relief before the single justice from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court. The petitioner, however, has not complied with the requirement of rule 2:21 (2) that she “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.” The petitioner mentions some perceived consequences of the decision by the single justice and of that of the District Court judge, but does not meet her burden under rule 2:21 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

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

Josephine Frontera (petitioner) appeals pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

We assume, without deciding, that for purposes of determining the applicability of rule 2:21 (1), the petitioner had sought relief before the single justice from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court. The petitioner, however, has not complied with the requirement of rule 2:21 (2) that she “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.” The petitioner mentions some perceived consequences of the decision by the single justice and of that of the District Court judge, but does not meet her burden under rule 2:21 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 N.E.2d 1246, 432 Mass. 1027, 2000 Mass. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frontera-v-city-of-somerville-mass-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack