Saade v. Zoning Commission

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Saade v. Zoning Commission

758 N.E.2d 1055, 435 Mass. 1009, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 693

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 758 N.E.2d 1055 (Saade v. Zoning Commission) 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

Saade v. Zoning Commission, 758 N.E.2d 1055, 435 Mass. 1009, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 693 (Mass. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

The order of the Land Court judge is interlocutory, so we consider whether the petitioner has, as rule 2:21 (2) requires, “set forth . . . reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal ... or by other available means.” The petitioner has alleged in his memorandum filed under rule 2:21 that his “substantive equal protection rights” and his “substantive due process rights” have been violated; that certain cases have a bearing on the action; and that the BRA should be a party to the action. He states, in conclusion, that he “will suffer irreparable [1010]*1010harm” and that he does not have other appellate options. These statements do not rise to the level required by rule 2:21 (2).

Jack Saade, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

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

The order of the Land Court judge is interlocutory, so we consider whether the petitioner has, as rule 2:21 (2) requires, “set forth . . . reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal ... or by other available means.” The petitioner has alleged in his memorandum filed under rule 2:21 that his “substantive equal protection rights” and his “substantive due process rights” have been violated; that certain cases have a bearing on the action; and that the BRA should be a party to the action. He states, in conclusion, that he “will suffer irreparable [1010]*1010harm” and that he does not have other appellate options. These statements do not rise to the level required by rule 2:21 (2).

Jack Saade, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 N.E.2d 1055, 435 Mass. 1009, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saade-v-zoning-commission-mass-2001.