Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court Department

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court Department

896 N.E.2d 1262, 452 Mass. 1025, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 787

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 24, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 896 N.E.2d 1262 (Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District 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

Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court Department, 896 N.E.2d 1262, 452 Mass. 1025, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 787 (Mass. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence Watson (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. c. 249, § 4. We affirm.

The petitioner, a frequent litigant in the Massachusetts appellate courts, raises numerous claims arising from a series of G. L. c. 209A orders issued by the District Court more than a decade ago. The petitioner has offered no supporting material for his claims, largely, as he concedes, because of the age of the claims •— they arise from orders entered in the District Court in 1995. See Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000). To the extent that he claims the District Court has failed to provide him with materials from his underlying cases, even those claims are made without support. See Roe v. Rosencratz, 443 Mass. 1021 (2005); Santiago v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1045 (2004). We have been presented with no basis to conclude that the single justice abused his discretion or otherwise erred.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Lawrence Watson (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. c. 249, § 4. We affirm.

The petitioner, a frequent litigant in the Massachusetts appellate courts, raises numerous claims arising from a series of G. L. c. 209A orders issued by the District Court more than a decade ago. The petitioner has offered no supporting material for his claims, largely, as he concedes, because of the age of the claims •— they arise from orders entered in the District Court in 1995. See Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000). To the extent that he claims the District Court has failed to provide him with materials from his underlying cases, even those claims are made without support. See Roe v. Rosencratz, 443 Mass. 1021 (2005); Santiago v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1045 (2004). We have been presented with no basis to conclude that the single justice abused his discretion or otherwise erred.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 N.E.2d 1262, 452 Mass. 1025, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-justices-of-the-dorchester-division-of-the-district-court-mass-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack