Rothman v. Trister

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Rothman v. Trister

882 N.E.2d 849, 450 Mass. 1034, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 198

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 21, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 882 N.E.2d 849 (Rothman v. Trister) 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

Rothman v. Trister, 882 N.E.2d 849, 450 Mass. 1034, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 198 (Mass. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner, Moshe Rothman, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The single justice of this court correctly determined that this was not an appropriate occasion to exercise the court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence. The petitioner’s failure to perfect his appeals in the Appeals Court was of his own doing. Although he was acting pro se, he nevertheless was bound to comply with the governing court rules. See Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985); International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). Moreover, there was no demonstration in the petitioner’s submissions before the single justice of this court, or in his submissions before the full court, that the single justices of the Appeals Court had erred or abused their discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 379 (1975) (discussing moving party’s burden in seeking permission to docket appeal late).

Judgment affirmed.

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

The petitioner, Moshe Rothman, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The single justice of this court correctly determined that this was not an appropriate occasion to exercise the court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence. The petitioner’s failure to perfect his appeals in the Appeals Court was of his own doing. Although he was acting pro se, he nevertheless was bound to comply with the governing court rules. See Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985); International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). Moreover, there was no demonstration in the petitioner’s submissions before the single justice of this court, or in his submissions before the full court, that the single justices of the Appeals Court had erred or abused their discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 379 (1975) (discussing moving party’s burden in seeking permission to docket appeal late).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 N.E.2d 849, 450 Mass. 1034, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothman-v-trister-mass-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack