Legal Opinion

Scott v. District Attorney for the Norfolk District

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 12, 2005PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lorenzo Quintín Scott appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, without a hearing. We affirm.

Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where, as here, “there are other routes by which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief.” Sabree v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000). It is the petitioner’s burden to allege and demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies. See, e.g., Russell v. Nichols, 434 Mass. 1015, 1016 (2001).

Here, the petitioner cannot meet his burden. He has, in fact, already…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Votta v. Police DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
  2. Russell v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  3. Sabree v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RuizMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
  2. Abdullah v. Secretary of Public SafetyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  3. Sagar v. Middlesex Division of the Probate & Family Court Department of the Trial CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  4. Scott v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  5. Chandra v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API