Longo v. Metropolitan District Commission

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Longo v. Metropolitan District Commission

231 N.E.2d 576, 353 Mass. 753

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 231 N.E.2d 576 (Longo v. Metropolitan District Commission) 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

Longo v. Metropolitan District Commission, 231 N.E.2d 576, 353 Mass. 753 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner brought a petition under G. L. c. 258, and c. 92, § 36, to recover damages resulting from an alleged defect in a boulevard under the control of the respondent. During the trial the case was settled and an agreement for judgment was signed by the petitioner and his attorney. Following this a “certificate of judgment [was] issued” in accordance with the agreement. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a “motion to vacate judgment,” which we treat as a petition to vacate judgment. After a hearing the “motion” was denied and the petitioner filed this “appeal to a motion denied.” This case is not properly before us on appeal. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp. 274 Mass. 488, 490. Amolins v. Lubans, 346 Mass. 782. Furthermore there is nothing in the record to indicate any abuse of discretion in the denial of the “motion.”

Appeal dismissed.

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

The petitioner brought a petition under G. L. c. 258, and c. 92, § 36, to recover damages resulting from an alleged defect in a boulevard under the control of the respondent. During the trial the case was settled and an agreement for judgment was signed by the petitioner and his attorney. Following this a “certificate of judgment [was] issued” in accordance with the agreement. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a “motion to vacate judgment,” which we treat as a petition to vacate judgment. After a hearing the “motion” was denied and the petitioner filed this “appeal to a motion denied.” This case is not properly before us on appeal. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp. 274 Mass. 488, 490. Amolins v. Lubans, 346 Mass. 782. Furthermore there is nothing in the record to indicate any abuse of discretion in the denial of the “motion.”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 N.E.2d 576, 353 Mass. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longo-v-metropolitan-district-commission-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack