Votta v. Commonwealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
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
- Soja v. T. P. Sampson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Foley v. Lowell Division of the District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Pandey v. RoulstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- Hines v. Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tavares v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
- Drayton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Hunt v. Appeals CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Votta v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Votta v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005