Leasefirst v. Minuteman Trucking Corp.

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Leasefirst v. Minuteman Trucking Corp.

1989 Mass. App. Div. 214, 1989 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 18

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division·Decided November 24, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Turcotte, J.

This is an appeal of the trial judge's denial of a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment, an interlocutory mattér. The plaintiff is not entitled to piecemeal appellate review. The appeal 'is lacking the judge's necessary certificate.

“There is no right to immediate appellate review of interlocutory orders or rulings. An appeal of an interlocutory ruling may be brought to this divison only with the consent, or upon the voluntary report, of the trial judge pursuant to G.L. c. 231 § 108, and Dist/Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64(d). The report of an interlocutory order or ruling should contain an express, written certification in the report that the interlocutory ruling in question ‘so affects the merits of the controversy that it ought, injustice, to be determined by the Appellate Division before farther proceedings are had.’ ” Hearthside Court Condominium Trust at Pembroke v. Paul Kerrigan and Another, 1988 Mass. App. Div. 57.²

Report dismissed.

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

Turcotte, J.

This is an appeal of the trial judge's denial of a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment, an interlocutory mattér. The plaintiff is not entitled to piecemeal appellate review. The appeal 'is lacking the judge's necessary certificate.

“There is no right to immediate appellate review of interlocutory orders or rulings. An appeal of an interlocutory ruling may be brought to this divison only with the consent, or upon the voluntary report, of the trial judge pursuant to G.L. c. 231 § 108, and Dist/Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64(d). The report of an interlocutory order or ruling should contain an express, written certification in the report that the interlocutory ruling in question ‘so affects the merits of the controversy that it ought, injustice, to be determined by the Appellate Division before farther proceedings are had.’ ” Hearthside Court Condominium Trust at Pembroke v. Paul Kerrigan and Another, 1988 Mass. App. Div. 57.²

Report dismissed.

Leasefirst v. Minuteman Trucking Corp., 1989 Mass. App. Div. 214, 1989 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 18 (Mass. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

1989 Mass. App. Div. 214 (Leasefirst v. Minuteman Trucking Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related