Stevenson v. Cafasso Properties, LLC

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Stevenson v. Cafasso Properties, LLC

884 N.E.2d 972, 451 Mass. 1003, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 229

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 884 N.E.2d 972 (Stevenson v. Cafasso Properties, LLC) 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

Stevenson v. Cafasso Properties, LLC, 884 N.E.2d 972, 451 Mass. 1003, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 229 (Mass. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In the District Court, the petitioner was the defendant in a summary process action. She counterclaimed against her landlord and purported to file in the same action a complaint against various third parties; that complaint was entered as a separate civil action. In the summary process action, the petitioner moved unsuccessfully to compel discovery from her landlord and from the third parties. She then sought relief in the county court from the adverse discovery ruling, to no avail. (She raised other issues in her petition that she does not press on appeal.) The single justice neither abused her discretion nor otherwise erred in declining to exercise the court’s extraordinary superintendence power — discovery matters of the sort the petitioner raises here can be addressed adequately on direct appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

In the District Court, the petitioner was the defendant in a summary process action. She counterclaimed against her landlord and purported to file in the same action a complaint against various third parties; that complaint was entered as a separate civil action. In the summary process action, the petitioner moved unsuccessfully to compel discovery from her landlord and from the third parties. She then sought relief in the county court from the adverse discovery ruling, to no avail. (She raised other issues in her petition that she does not press on appeal.) The single justice neither abused her discretion nor otherwise erred in declining to exercise the court’s extraordinary superintendence power — discovery matters of the sort the petitioner raises here can be addressed adequately on direct appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 N.E.2d 972, 451 Mass. 1003, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-cafasso-properties-llc-mass-2008.