Leibowitz v. Buehler Realty Trust

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Leibowitz v. Buehler Realty Trust

1988 Mass. App. Div. 26, 1988 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 3

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 17, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1988 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Leibowitz v. Buehler Realty Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leibowitz v. Buehler Realty Trust, 1988 Mass. App. Div. 26, 1988 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 3 (Mass. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Black, J.

This case involves a petition to establish a report filed by the petitioner, pro se, in which she contends that the trial judge who heard a civil matter in which she was the defendant erroneously excluded evidence and placed undue weight upon certain evidence received during the trial. The petition fails to give any specifics concerning the cause of action. Clearly, however, no claim of report was made during the trial as to any of the judge’s [27]*27rulings on the admissibility of evidence and no report was filed in accordance with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64 (a). Likewise there is no indication that requests for rulings of law were filed at the conclusion of the trial and before closing argument in conformity with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64(b).

In summary, the petitioner articulates numerous claims of error concerning the conduct of the trial by the judge, none of which appear to present a question of law. In any event, none have been properly preserved for appellate review. Therefore, even if the petition were allowed, the petitioner could not ultimately prevail, (see Sperberg v. Allstate Inc. Co., 58 Mass. App. Dec. 137 (1976) ). Consequently, the petition to establish a report is denied.

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

Black, J.

This case involves a petition to establish a report filed by the petitioner, pro se, in which she contends that the trial judge who heard a civil matter in which she was the defendant erroneously excluded evidence and placed undue weight upon certain evidence received during the trial. The petition fails to give any specifics concerning the cause of action. Clearly, however, no claim of report was made during the trial as to any of the judge’s [27]*27rulings on the admissibility of evidence and no report was filed in accordance with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64 (a). Likewise there is no indication that requests for rulings of law were filed at the conclusion of the trial and before closing argument in conformity with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64(b).

In summary, the petitioner articulates numerous claims of error concerning the conduct of the trial by the judge, none of which appear to present a question of law. In any event, none have been properly preserved for appellate review. Therefore, even if the petition were allowed, the petitioner could not ultimately prevail, (see Sperberg v. Allstate Inc. Co., 58 Mass. App. Dec. 137 (1976) ). Consequently, the petition to establish a report is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1988 Mass. App. Div. 26, 1988 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leibowitz-v-buehler-realty-trust-massdistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack