Legal Opinion

Kurbatzky v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 2, 2018No. SJC–12492PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kurbatzky has now filed what appears to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), although she is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. In fact, she is not challenging any specific ruling at all, but rather the validity of the indictments themselves. Regardless whether rule 2:21 applies, however, she is not entitled to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. Her remedy as to the indictments is to seek their dismissal in the trial court. Indeed, just prior to filing *352her G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, she did just this.2

This…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jackson v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  2. Ventresco v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  3. Bateman v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dickey v. Inspectional Services Department of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
  2. Kim Luz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.; David Baiada; And Mark BaiadaMassachusetts Superior Court · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API