Legal Opinion

Tardiff

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 9, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, C.J.

We are constrained to hold that this case is not properly before us. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Superior Court. The judge has attempted to report the case without decision “on the substitute petition, the return and answer.” 1

It is provided by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 213, § IB, inserted by St. 1939, c. 257, § 1, that questions of law arising in any type of proceeding of which concurrent jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court by the preceding section (including habeas corpus) may be reserved and reported for the consideration of the full court in the manner…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. King Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Cape Cod Broadcasting Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  2. Atlantic Maritime Co. v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Moore v. Election CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  5. O'LearyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Director of the Division of Employment Security v. Town of MattapoisettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  2. Lindsey v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
  3. VautierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  4. Commonwealth v. GuzmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  5. DuboisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API