Knott v. Laythe

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Knott v. Laythe

661 N.E.2d 1343, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 110

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

DocketNo. 94-P-1743

StatusPublished

This text of 661 N.E.2d 1343 (Knott v. Laythe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knott v. Laythe, 661 N.E.2d 1343, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 110 (Mass. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

We are troubled by the filing and prosecution of an appeal in a case such as this where the matter can easily be remedied by a new notice at far less expense to the landlord and far less burden to the court system. We are also troubled by the failure of the landlord’s counsel to inform the court prior to oral argument and our questioning that the matter is moot. Because of these concerns¹ we order counsel not to charge the client for any services or costs in connection with this appeal and to give his client a copy of this order. See Estate of Solis-Rivera v. United States, 993 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993); Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. App. 1988).

Although, when questioned at oral argument, counsel gave no satisfactory explanation for the prosecution of this appeal, counsel may, if he wishes, file an affidavit within thirty days of the date of release of this opinion setting forth facts showing why he should not be required to forego his fee.

Appeal dismissed.

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

We are troubled by the filing and prosecution of an appeal in a case such as this where the matter can easily be remedied by a new notice at far less expense to the landlord and far less burden to the court system. We are also troubled by the failure of the landlord’s counsel to inform the court prior to oral argument and our questioning that the matter is moot. Because of these concerns¹ we order counsel not to charge the client for any services or costs in connection with this appeal and to give his client a copy of this order. See Estate of Solis-Rivera v. United States, 993 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993); Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. App. 1988).

Although, when questioned at oral argument, counsel gave no satisfactory explanation for the prosecution of this appeal, counsel may, if he wishes, file an affidavit within thirty days of the date of release of this opinion setting forth facts showing why he should not be required to forego his fee.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 N.E.2d 1343, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knott-v-laythe-massappct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack