Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Langton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 29, 1983PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Whitmarsh v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  2. Rosenberg v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  3. Coach & Six Restaurant, Inc. v. Public Works CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  4. County Commissioners v. SheriffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Callahan v. Board of Bar OverseersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  2. Bolton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  3. Layne v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  4. McDonald v. ChandlerMassachusetts Superior Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API