Legal Opinion

Votta v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 16, 2002PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

“This court has emphasized repeatedly that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary.” Pandey v. Roulston, 419 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1995). It applies only “in exceptional circumstances and where necessary to protect substantive rights in the absence of an alternative, effective remedy.” Id., quoting Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977). “Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied.” Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 398 Mass. 800, 802 (1986).

Here, Votta claims that review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Soja v. T. P. Sampson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Foley v. Lowell Division of the District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  3. Pandey v. RoulstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  4. Hines v. Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tavares v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
  2. Drayton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  3. Hunt v. Appeals CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  4. Votta v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
  5. Votta v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API