Legal Opinion

Roe v. Rosencratz

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 5, 2005PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Soja v. T. P. Sampson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Matthews v. D'ArcyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  3. In re an Appeal BondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  4. Callahan v. Eastern Bank & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  5. Phillips v. BudzianowskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Watson v. Clerk-Magistrate of District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
  2. Watson v. Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API