Keane v. Danvers Savings Bank

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Keane v. Danvers Savings Bank

803 N.E.2d 707, 441 Mass. 1005, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 119

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 803 N.E.2d 707 (Keane v. Danvers Savings Bank) 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

Keane v. Danvers Savings Bank, 803 N.E.2d 707, 441 Mass. 1005, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 119 (Mass. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph Keane appeals from the denial by a single justice of this court of his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In his petition, Keane seeks relief from two orders. The first was made by a District Court judge, who dismissed as untimely Keane’s appeal from a judgment entered against him in that court. The second was made by a single justice of the Appeals Court, who denied his motion for leave to file late a notice of appeal from a prior order by another single justice. Keane’s claims concerning both orders share a common element: they each can be resolved in the course of the normal appellate process. Indeed, Keane has taken the initial steps toward doing so, filing notices of appeal and seeking the assembly of the relevant records. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be sought “merely as a substitute for normal appellate review.” McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), quoting Francis v. District Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., 388 Mass. 1009, 1010 (1983). Thus, the single justice did not abuse her discretion in denying Keane’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Joseph Keane appeals from the denial by a single justice of this court of his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In his petition, Keane seeks relief from two orders. The first was made by a District Court judge, who dismissed as untimely Keane’s appeal from a judgment entered against him in that court. The second was made by a single justice of the Appeals Court, who denied his motion for leave to file late a notice of appeal from a prior order by another single justice. Keane’s claims concerning both orders share a common element: they each can be resolved in the course of the normal appellate process. Indeed, Keane has taken the initial steps toward doing so, filing notices of appeal and seeking the assembly of the relevant records. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be sought “merely as a substitute for normal appellate review.” McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), quoting Francis v. District Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., 388 Mass. 1009, 1010 (1983). Thus, the single justice did not abuse her discretion in denying Keane’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 N.E.2d 707, 441 Mass. 1005, 2004 Mass. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keane-v-danvers-savings-bank-mass-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack