Riley v. Mechanics Bank

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Riley v. Mechanics Bank

395 N.E.2d 889, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 918

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 395 N.E.2d 889 (Riley v. Mechanics Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riley v. Mechanics Bank, 395 N.E.2d 889, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 918 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs afe appealing from that part of the Superior Court judge’s order which partially denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. See G. L. c. 231, § 118 (second paragraph), as appearing in St. 1977, c. 405. The judge granted the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the defendant from selling or transferring certain assets of the Chapin Riley Trust B, but refused to enjoin the defendant from selling certain other shares of the plaintiffs’ stock which were in the defendant’s possession.

On examination of the record, and consideration of the arguments, we are unable to discern any abuse of discretion in the Superior Court judge’s ruling. Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 914 (1979). See Foreign Auto Import, Inc. v. Renault Northeast, Inc., 367 Mass. 464, 472-473 (1975). But see Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commn. v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Order affirmed.

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

The plaintiffs afe appealing from that part of the Superior Court judge’s order which partially denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. See G. L. c. 231, § 118 (second paragraph), as appearing in St. 1977, c. 405. The judge granted the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the defendant from selling or transferring certain assets of the Chapin Riley Trust B, but refused to enjoin the defendant from selling certain other shares of the plaintiffs’ stock which were in the defendant’s possession.

On examination of the record, and consideration of the arguments, we are unable to discern any abuse of discretion in the Superior Court judge’s ruling. Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 914 (1979). See Foreign Auto Import, Inc. v. Renault Northeast, Inc., 367 Mass. 464, 472-473 (1975). But see Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commn. v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 N.E.2d 889, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-mechanics-bank-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack