Laino v. Dumais

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Laino v. Dumais

274 N.E.2d 823, 360 Mass. 854

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 N.E.2d 823 (Laino v. Dumais) 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

Laino v. Dumais, 274 N.E.2d 823, 360 Mass. 854 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition under G. L. c. 250, § 15, to vacate a District Court judgment in the amount of $745.25 with costs entered in favor of the respondent in an action of contract. The petition was denied in the District Court when it was marked for hearing and neither the petitioner nor his counsel’ appeared. On appeal to the Superior Court the petition was denied and the petitioner excepted. Denial of a motion in the original action for a new trial on grounds similar to those now advanced by the petitioner was upheld by the Appellate Division and by this court. Dumais v. Laino, 352 Mass. 786. The granting of a petition to vacate a judgment rests largely although not exclusively in the sound discretion of the judge. Alpert v. Mercury Publishing Co. 272 Mass. 43, 45. The petitioner bears a heavy burden in seeking to have a judgment set aside. Alpert v. Mercury Publishing Co., supra, 45. Russell v. Foley, 278 Mass. 145, 148. In some circumstances we have held that the petition must be denied as matter of law. Mede v. Colbert, 342 Mass. 166. The petitioner claims error here in that the Superior Court judge did not permit him to present evidence in support of the petition. However, the petitioner was permitted to make a detailed opening statement as to the expected evidence. We need not decide whether upon the record before him the judge was required to deny the petition. The petitioner has failed to prove an abuse of discretion in the judge’s ruling.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is a petition under G. L. c. 250, § 15, to vacate a District Court judgment in the amount of $745.25 with costs entered in favor of the respondent in an action of contract. The petition was denied in the District Court when it was marked for hearing and neither the petitioner nor his counsel’ appeared. On appeal to the Superior Court the petition was denied and the petitioner excepted. Denial of a motion in the original action for a new trial on grounds similar to those now advanced by the petitioner was upheld by the Appellate Division and by this court. Dumais v. Laino, 352 Mass. 786. The granting of a petition to vacate a judgment rests largely although not exclusively in the sound discretion of the judge. Alpert v. Mercury Publishing Co. 272 Mass. 43, 45. The petitioner bears a heavy burden in seeking to have a judgment set aside. Alpert v. Mercury Publishing Co., supra, 45. Russell v. Foley, 278 Mass. 145, 148. In some circumstances we have held that the petition must be denied as matter of law. Mede v. Colbert, 342 Mass. 166. The petitioner claims error here in that the Superior Court judge did not permit him to present evidence in support of the petition. However, the petitioner was permitted to make a detailed opening statement as to the expected evidence. We need not decide whether upon the record before him the judge was required to deny the petition. The petitioner has failed to prove an abuse of discretion in the judge’s ruling.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 N.E.2d 823, 360 Mass. 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laino-v-dumais-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack