Roe v. Rosencratz
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the Court
Roe’s petition primarily challenges a judgment in the Superior Court dismissing a twenty-five count complaint she filed against the same twenty parties who are the respondents in this appeal. Because the judgment could have been challenged adequately in the ordinary appellate process, and Roe has not met her burden of demonstrating otherwise, the single justice did not err in denying extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. See Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 2), 428 Mass. 1022, 1022-1023 (1999), citing Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977).
In addition, Roe claims that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Soja v. T. P. Sampson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Matthews v. D'ArcyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- In re an Appeal BondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Callahan v. Eastern Bank & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- Phillips v. BudzianowskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
3Cited by2 opinions
- Watson v. Clerk-Magistrate of District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
- Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008