Votta v. Police Department

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Votta v. Police Department

826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1001, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 171

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by44 cases

This text of 826 N.E.2d 199 (Votta v. Police 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

Votta v. Police Department, 826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1001, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 171 (Mass. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

A judge in the District Court found the petitioner responsible for a civil motor vehicle infraction. That finding was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the District Court and by the Appeals Court. Police Dep’t of Billerica v. Votta, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2003). The Appeals Court also denied the petitioner’s request for a rehearing. The petitioner did not seek further appellate review from this court.

The single justice correctly denied the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition because the claims made in the petition could have been (indeed, apparently were) raised at the hearing in the District Court and on appeal. The petitioner did not seek further review. Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.

Judgment affirmed.

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

A judge in the District Court found the petitioner responsible for a civil motor vehicle infraction. That finding was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the District Court and by the Appeals Court. Police Dep’t of Billerica v. Votta, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2003). The Appeals Court also denied the petitioner’s request for a rehearing. The petitioner did not seek further appellate review from this court.

The single justice correctly denied the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition because the claims made in the petition could have been (indeed, apparently were) raised at the hearing in the District Court and on appeal. The petitioner did not seek further review. Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 N.E.2d 199, 444 Mass. 1001, 2005 Mass. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/votta-v-police-department-mass-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack