Nassar v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Nassar v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court

702 N.E.2d 802, 428 Mass. 1019, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 697

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 702 N.E.2d 802 (Nassar v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court) 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

Nassar v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court, 702 N.E.2d 802, 428 Mass. 1019, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 697 (Mass. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

We treat the direction that the petitioner make service by certified mail as an interlocutory ruling for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and turn to the requirement in rule 2:21 (2) that “the appellant must set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." The petitioner contends that he “has nowhere else to go.” He has not demonstrated, however, that review would not have been available in the Appeals Court had he filed his petition within the time specified; or that review could not be obtained on appeal from an adverse judgment (perhaps of dismissal) in the Superior Court. The petitioner has not met his burden.

Judgment affirmed.

Ginny Sinkel, Assistant Attorney General, for Superior Court Department of the Trial Court. George Nassar, pro se.

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

We treat the direction that the petitioner make service by certified mail as an interlocutory ruling for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and turn to the requirement in rule 2:21 (2) that “the appellant must set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." The petitioner contends that he “has nowhere else to go.” He has not demonstrated, however, that review would not have been available in the Appeals Court had he filed his petition within the time specified; or that review could not be obtained on appeal from an adverse judgment (perhaps of dismissal) in the Superior Court. The petitioner has not met his burden.

Judgment affirmed.

Ginny Sinkel, Assistant Attorney General, for Superior Court Department of the Trial Court. George Nassar, pro se.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 N.E.2d 802, 428 Mass. 1019, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassar-v-superior-court-department-of-trial-court-mass-1998.