Seymour's Case
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. The insurer is correct in contending that the judgment, which was entered by a District Court judge sitting by designation in the Superior Court, whereby the findings and decision of the reviewing board were "[r]e-versed” and the case "recommitted” to the reviewing board for the entry of a decision "pursuant” to that of the single member, was not in proper form. Johnson’s Case, 242 Mass. 489, 493-495 (1922). Webb’s Case, 318 Mass. 357, 358-359 (1945). Indeed, the language of recommittal employed by the judge suggests that it might not be a final judgment at all, but merely an interlocutory…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Foreign Auto Import, Inc. v. Renault Northeast, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Johnson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Chapman's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Roney's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Webb's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Geryk v. Zoning Appeals Board of EasthamptonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- In the Matter of MoeMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Biagini's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1986
- Carnute's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Moog v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.