McCormack v. Municipal Court of Brookline

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

McCormack v. Municipal Court of Brookline

243 N.E.2d 924, 355 Mass. 786

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 N.E.2d 924 (McCormack v. Municipal Court of Brookline) 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

McCormack v. Municipal Court of Brookline, 243 N.E.2d 924, 355 Mass. 786 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

This petition for a writ of certiorari seeks to quash a decision of a District Court judge affirming a decision of the Civil Service Commission. The petitioner, employed by the town of Brookline, had been ordered discharged by the appointing authority after hearing, and had appealed to the Commission which modified the discharge to a six months’ suspension under G. L. c. 31, § 43 (b). The respondent’s demurrer was sustained by the Superior Court and the petitioner excepted. There was no error. The chief contention of the petitioner is that the District Court judge erred in reviewing the transcript of the evidence before the Commission and in not taking evidence himself. However, it was entirely proper for the District Court judge to proceed as he did. “ ‘Review’ indicates ‘a re-examination of a proceeding, already concluded, for the purpose of preventing a result which appears not to be based upon the exercise of an unbiased and reasonable judgment. . . . ’ ” Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist. 322 Mass. 566, 573. The hearing before the Commission was de nova. Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist., supra, at p. 572. Luacaw v. Fire Commr. of Boston, 350 Mass. 326, 330. There was no occasion, as argued by the petitioner, for the District Court judge to examine evidence taken by the appointing authority.

Exceptions overruled.

Petition dismissed.

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

This petition for a writ of certiorari seeks to quash a decision of a District Court judge affirming a decision of the Civil Service Commission. The petitioner, employed by the town of Brookline, had been ordered discharged by the appointing authority after hearing, and had appealed to the Commission which modified the discharge to a six months’ suspension under G. L. c. 31, § 43 (b). The respondent’s demurrer was sustained by the Superior Court and the petitioner excepted. There was no error. The chief contention of the petitioner is that the District Court judge erred in reviewing the transcript of the evidence before the Commission and in not taking evidence himself. However, it was entirely proper for the District Court judge to proceed as he did. “ ‘Review’ indicates ‘a re-examination of a proceeding, already concluded, for the purpose of preventing a result which appears not to be based upon the exercise of an unbiased and reasonable judgment. . . . ’ ” Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist. 322 Mass. 566, 573. The hearing before the Commission was de nova. Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist., supra, at p. 572. Luacaw v. Fire Commr. of Boston, 350 Mass. 326, 330. There was no occasion, as argued by the petitioner, for the District Court judge to examine evidence taken by the appointing authority.

Exceptions overruled.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 N.E.2d 924, 355 Mass. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormack-v-municipal-court-of-brookline-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack