Sinai v. Plymouth Division of Probate & Family Court Department

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sinai v. Plymouth Division of Probate & Family Court Department

681 N.E.2d 278, 425 Mass. 1021, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 173

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 681 N.E.2d 278 (Sinai v. Plymouth Division of Probate & Family Court Department) 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

Sinai v. Plymouth Division of Probate & Family Court Department, 681 N.E.2d 278, 425 Mass. 1021, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 173 (Mass. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

With respect to his “two appeals,” the petitioner failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, that the errors he claimed in the proceedings below could not adequately have been remedied through the normal appellate process or by other available means. It was his obligation to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert, denied, 117 S. Ct. 439 (1996). McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995). The petitioner also failed to develop a factual record before the single justice substantiating his claims of error. It was his obligation to develop such a record. Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007 (1992). Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1990).

Regarding the “petition for transferí],” the single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying, on the very sparse record before him, the petitioner’s request for transfer to this court of the multiple actions identified by the petitioner. See G. L. c. 211, § 4A, third par.

In these circumstances, we shall not consider any facts or issues raised by the petitioner on appeal that were not raised in his submissions to the single justice.

Judgment affirmed.

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

With respect to his “two appeals,” the petitioner failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, that the errors he claimed in the proceedings below could not adequately have been remedied through the normal appellate process or by other available means. It was his obligation to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert, denied, 117 S. Ct. 439 (1996). McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995). The petitioner also failed to develop a factual record before the single justice substantiating his claims of error. It was his obligation to develop such a record. Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007 (1992). Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1990).

Regarding the “petition for transferí],” the single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying, on the very sparse record before him, the petitioner’s request for transfer to this court of the multiple actions identified by the petitioner. See G. L. c. 211, § 4A, third par.

In these circumstances, we shall not consider any facts or issues raised by the petitioner on appeal that were not raised in his submissions to the single justice.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 N.E.2d 278, 425 Mass. 1021, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinai-v-plymouth-division-of-probate-family-court-department-mass-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack