Johnson Acoustics, Inc. v. Singh

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Johnson Acoustics, Inc. v. Singh

1980 Mass. App. Div. 35, 1 Mass. Supp. 535, 1980 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 12

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 27, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1980 Mass. App. Div. 35 (Johnson Acoustics, Inc. v. Singh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson Acoustics, Inc. v. Singh, 1980 Mass. App. Div. 35, 1 Mass. Supp. 535, 1980 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 12 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

McGuane, J.

The issue raised by this appeal presents again the question of whether the denial of a motion to remove a default and vacate a judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

In Berube v. McKesson Wine & Spirits Co., Mass. App. Ct. (1979)

a the Massachusetts Appeals Court stated that “[t]he exercise of discretion in this area involves the absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition, or whimsical thinking,” or ‘ ‘the avoidance of idiosyncratic choice. ’ ’ Further, the same opinion states that a marked deference should be made to the decision reached by lower court judges.

The record in this case and arguments by the appellant fail to indicate whether or not there was a meritorious defense to the action. The trial judge was the one best suited to make the decision, and nowhere has the appellant shown any aribitrary, capricious or whimsical action by the trial judge.

We are of the opinion that the trial justice acted fairly and properly on the motions.

There being no showing of any kind of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, this report is dismissed.

Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh. (1979) 742.

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