Linn v. Emmons

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Linn v. Emmons

921 N.E.2d 942, 456 Mass. 1003, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 34

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 921 N.E.2d 942 (Linn v. Emmons) 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

Linn v. Emmons, 921 N.E.2d 942, 456 Mass. 1003, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 34 (Mass. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Peter T. Linn appeals pro se from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from judgments entered in the Probate and Family Court, concerning child custody and support matters, and from a decision by the Appeals Court in which he had challenged the underlying judgments. See Emmons v. Linn, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2009). This court denied his application for further appellate review. See Emmons v. Linn, 453 Mass. 1103 (2009). Linn has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). He seeks improperly to invoke this court’s superintendence power to relitigate matters that he unsuccessfully sought to challenge in the earlier proceedings. “Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.” Votta v. Police Dep’t of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). See Davidson v. Register of Probate for Essex County, 454 Mass. 1013 (2009). Accordingly, the single justice properly denied his petition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Peter T. Linn appeals pro se from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from judgments entered in the Probate and Family Court, concerning child custody and support matters, and from a decision by the Appeals Court in which he had challenged the underlying judgments. See Emmons v. Linn, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2009). This court denied his application for further appellate review. See Emmons v. Linn, 453 Mass. 1103 (2009). Linn has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). He seeks improperly to invoke this court’s superintendence power to relitigate matters that he unsuccessfully sought to challenge in the earlier proceedings. “Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.” Votta v. Police Dep’t of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). See Davidson v. Register of Probate for Essex County, 454 Mass. 1013 (2009). Accordingly, the single justice properly denied his petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 N.E.2d 942, 456 Mass. 1003, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linn-v-emmons-mass-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack