Legal Opinion

Roullett v. Quincy Division of the District Court Department

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 31, 1985PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We will not reverse the disposition by a single justice of a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, absent a showing of abuse of discretion or clear error of law. Doten v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dept., ante 1001 (1985). Palaza v. Superior Court, 393 Mass. 1001,1002 (1984). Even assuming that Roullett’s version of the facts is supported by the record,1 2 we must affirm the judgment of the single justice because Roullett failed to demonstrate that a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is his only avenue of appeal. Roullett had a right on April 25, 1984, to appeal the sentencing,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Soja v. T. P. Sampson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Commonwealth v. NawnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Palaza v. Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McGuinness v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  2. BirchallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
  3. McMenimen v. PassatempoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  5. Forte v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API