Sarno v. Sarno

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sarno v. Sarno

660 N.E.2d 659, 422 Mass. 1001, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 23

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 660 N.E.2d 659 (Sarno v. Sarno) 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

Sarno v. Sarno, 660 N.E.2d 659, 422 Mass. 1001, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 23 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant appellant’s attempt to seek review of the denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), must fail. To his challenge to the entry of a preliminary order that he pay a portion of the college tuition of his nineteen year old daughter, he added a request that the single justice declare G. L. c. 208, § 28 (1994 ed.), unconstitutional. His appeal disclaims any challenge to the single justice’s denial of relief from the preliminary order itself.

The request for a declaratory judgment seeks to present an issue that underlies the defendant’s challenge to the preliminary order of the trial court. The defendant has not demonstrated, or even argued, that review of the trial court decision after trial and final judgment will not adequately protect his interests. It may be that, on the facts, the issue of the constitutionality of G. L. c. 208, § 28, will never be reached.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The defendant appellant’s attempt to seek review of the denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), must fail. To his challenge to the entry of a preliminary order that he pay a portion of the college tuition of his nineteen year old daughter, he added a request that the single justice declare G. L. c. 208, § 28 (1994 ed.), unconstitutional. His appeal disclaims any challenge to the single justice’s denial of relief from the preliminary order itself.

The request for a declaratory judgment seeks to present an issue that underlies the defendant’s challenge to the preliminary order of the trial court. The defendant has not demonstrated, or even argued, that review of the trial court decision after trial and final judgment will not adequately protect his interests. It may be that, on the facts, the issue of the constitutionality of G. L. c. 208, § 28, will never be reached.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 N.E.2d 659, 422 Mass. 1001, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarno-v-sarno-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack