Pignone v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Pignone v. Commonwealth

749 N.E.2d 683, 434 Mass. 1008, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 337

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 749 N.E.2d 683 (Pignone 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

Pignone v. Commonwealth, 749 N.E.2d 683, 434 Mass. 1008, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 337 (Mass. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Kenneth T. Pignone (petitioner) appeals under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial of relief by a single justice of this court. The petitioner had filed an “Application for Permission to Appeal Reduction of Bail to The Supreme Judicial Court.”

We treat the Superior Court judge’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for reduction of bail and release as an interlocutory order for purposes of rule 2:21 (1). The petitioner, however, has not met his burden under rule 2:21 (2). His terse reference, without explanation, to “irremediable error” does not constitute setting forth “the reasons why review of the trial court decision [1009]*1009cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.”

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Kenneth T. Pignone, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Kenneth T. Pignone (petitioner) appeals under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial of relief by a single justice of this court. The petitioner had filed an “Application for Permission to Appeal Reduction of Bail to The Supreme Judicial Court.”

We treat the Superior Court judge’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for reduction of bail and release as an interlocutory order for purposes of rule 2:21 (1). The petitioner, however, has not met his burden under rule 2:21 (2). His terse reference, without explanation, to “irremediable error” does not constitute setting forth “the reasons why review of the trial court decision [1009]*1009cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.”

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Kenneth T. Pignone, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

749 N.E.2d 683, 434 Mass. 1008, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pignone-v-commonwealth-mass-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack