Palmer v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Palmer v. Commonwealth

699 N.E.2d 814, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 530

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 699 N.E.2d 814 (Palmer v. Commonwealth) 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

Palmer v. Commonwealth, 699 N.E.2d 814, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 530 (Mass. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Rule 2:21 (2) requires that the petitioner “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 asserts that if a trial on the indictments precedes the civil proceedings, and if he is convicted, the plaintiffs in the subsequently tried civil action would be precluded from recovering (from him) under a certain professional [1014]*1014liability policy. This statement of potential impact on those plaintiffs does not constitute the requisite explanation why review on appeal, or by other available means, would be inadequate.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Michael A. Molloy for the petitioner.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rule 2:21 (2) requires that the petitioner “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 asserts that if a trial on the indictments precedes the civil proceedings, and if he is convicted, the plaintiffs in the subsequently tried civil action would be precluded from recovering (from him) under a certain professional [1014]*1014liability policy. This statement of potential impact on those plaintiffs does not constitute the requisite explanation why review on appeal, or by other available means, would be inadequate.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Michael A. Molloy for the petitioner.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 N.E.2d 814, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-commonwealth-mass-1998.