Mellen v. Pergantis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mellen v. Pergantis

877 N.E.2d 932, 450 Mass. 1017, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 811

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 14, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 877 N.E.2d 932 (Mellen v. Pergantis) 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

Mellen v. Pergantis, 877 N.E.2d 932, 450 Mass. 1017, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 811 (Mass. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Jay Patrick Mellen appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief from an adverse ruling in a summary process action in the District Court Department. The single justice treated the petition as one brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, to which Mellen makes no objection. Mellen has filed a brief that contains much information and argument, but he does not appear to challenge the action of the single justice. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). With respect to the underlying judgment in the summary process action, Mellen was entitled to an appeal to the Appellate Division of the District Court. See G. L. c. 231, § 108. Accordingly, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available. See Driscoll v. T.R. White Co., 441 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2004) (“This court’s extraordinary powers under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are reserved for circumstances where there is no adequate, alternative remedy”).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Jay Patrick Mellen appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief from an adverse ruling in a summary process action in the District Court Department. The single justice treated the petition as one brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, to which Mellen makes no objection. Mellen has filed a brief that contains much information and argument, but he does not appear to challenge the action of the single justice. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). With respect to the underlying judgment in the summary process action, Mellen was entitled to an appeal to the Appellate Division of the District Court. See G. L. c. 231, § 108. Accordingly, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available. See Driscoll v. T.R. White Co., 441 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2004) (“This court’s extraordinary powers under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are reserved for circumstances where there is no adequate, alternative remedy”).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

877 N.E.2d 932, 450 Mass. 1017, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mellen-v-pergantis-mass-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack