Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

714 N.E.2d 342, 430 Mass. 1001, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 607
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 29, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

“The extraordinary remedy provided by c. 211, § 3, should be invoked only when appellate review is otherwise unavailable.” Hahn v. Planning Bd. of Stoughton, 403 Mass. 332, 335 (1988). The petitioner could have sought and obtained appellate review of the judges’ actions. Moreover, the Superior Court docket entries reflect his filing of notices of appeal. As a result, we allow the motion of the MBTA to join in the motion of the city to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal from the judgment of the single justice, and we allow that motion to dismiss.

So ordered.

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

Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 714 N.E.2d 342, 430 Mass. 1001, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 607 (Mass. 1999).

714 N.E.2d 342 (Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doe v. Chapman
835 N.E.2d 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)