Watson v. McClerkin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the Court
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 *1003Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999). When a single justice denies relief in the nature of mandamus, “his determination will rarely be overturned.” Mack v. Clerk of the Appeals Court, 427 Mass. 1011, 1012 (1998), quoting Security Coop. Bank v. Inspector of Bldgs. of Brockton, 298 Mass. 5, 5-6 (1937). Watson has not established an entitlement to mandamus relief. We have reviewed the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gorod v. TabachnickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Matthews v. D'ArcyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Chicopee Lions Club v. DIST. ATTORNEY FOR HAMPDEN DISTMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Murray v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Forte v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Watson v. A Justice of the Boston Division of the Housing Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- Snell v. Office of the Chief Med. Exam'rMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019