Phillips v. Budzianowski

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Phillips v. Budzianowski

795 N.E.2d 571, 440 Mass. 1008, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 641

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 795 N.E.2d 571 (Phillips v. Budzianowski) 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

Phillips v. Budzianowski, 795 N.E.2d 571, 440 Mass. 1008, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 641 (Mass. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Phillips filed a motion in the Probate and Family Court for the production of audiotape recordings of certain proceedings and transcriptions of those recordings at no cost, pursuant to G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27D. A judge in the Probate and Family Court allowed the motion in part and denied it in part. Phillips then appealed to a single justice of the Appeals Court under G. L. c. 261, § 27D. The single justice dismissed the appeal as untimely and lacking in merit. Phillips then sought relief through his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).

The decision of the single justice of the Appeals Court is, in accordance with G. L. c. 261, § 27D, final. See Hurley v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 424 Mass. 1008, 1009 (1997). “Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge ‘shall be final’ ” (citation omitted). Id. See Im v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2000). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in declining to exercise his power under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Phillips filed a motion in the Probate and Family Court for the production of audiotape recordings of certain proceedings and transcriptions of those recordings at no cost, pursuant to G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27D. A judge in the Probate and Family Court allowed the motion in part and denied it in part. Phillips then appealed to a single justice of the Appeals Court under G. L. c. 261, § 27D. The single justice dismissed the appeal as untimely and lacking in merit. Phillips then sought relief through his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).

The decision of the single justice of the Appeals Court is, in accordance with G. L. c. 261, § 27D, final. See Hurley v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 424 Mass. 1008, 1009 (1997). “Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge ‘shall be final’ ” (citation omitted). Id. See Im v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2000). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in declining to exercise his power under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 N.E.2d 571, 440 Mass. 1008, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-budzianowski-mass-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack