Commonwealth v. Langton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the Court
Langton claims error in the exercise by the single justice of our extraordinary powers under G. L. c. 211, § 3. It is true that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, should be given only in extraordinary cases. See Rosenberg v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass. 59, 61 (1977). The instant case presents such circumstances. If the district attorney filed a commitment petition as ordered, and a determination on the merits were made that the defendant is a sexually dangerous person contrary to the belief of the district attorney, it is doubtful that the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party (albeit under duress),…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whitmarsh v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Rosenberg v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Coach & Six Restaurant, Inc. v. Public Works CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- County Commissioners v. SheriffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
3Cited by4 opinions
- Callahan v. Board of Bar OverseersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Bolton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Layne v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- McDonald v. ChandlerMassachusetts Superior Court · 1994