Legal Opinion

Stolpinski v. McGillicuddy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 30, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nevertheless, rule 2:21 (2) also requires that the plaintiffs set forth reasons why “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” Although the plaintiffs have stated in their memorandum that they “have exhausted all avenues for appellate review,” we do not consider that conclusory statement to be adequate under the rale. Moreover, review of the denial of a motion to amend may be obtained on appeal following trial. See Goulet v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc., 399 Mass. 547, 549-554 (1987);…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Castellucci v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Goulet v. Whitin MacHine Works, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  3. Wiska v. St. Stanislaus Social Club, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Abraham v. BatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  2. Hudson v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API