Corbett v. Kargman
| Decision Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Citation | 369 Mass. 971,343 N.E.2d 408 |
| Parties | Sharon CORBETT et al. v. Max KARGMAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert J. Doyle, Dorchester, for plaintiffs.
Edward Rabinovitz, Boston, for defendants.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiffs, tenants of the defendants (Kargmans), sought relief before a single justice of this court from an order of deposit entered in the Superior Court in connection with actions brought against them by the Kargmans for rent due and for possession. The single justice denied the petition. The petition, brought pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 4A, sought to have the Superior Court actions transferred so that a single justice could review the legality of the order of deposit. Unless the trial judge has reported a question concerning his interlocutory order, no piecemeal appellate review of such an order may be had, and '(t)he single justice correctly denied the petition as an indirect and premature attempt to obtain appellate review of an unreported interlocutory order . . ..' Albano v. Jordan Marsh Co.,--- Mass. ---, --- a, 327 N.E.2d 739 (1975). The plaintiffs might have obtained relief from the single justice under G.L. c. 231, § 118, as appearing in St.1973, c. 1114, § 202, reating in part to relief from interlocutory orders of judges of the Superior Court. However, even under § 118, no interlocutory appeal of (a) the trial judge's interlocutory order or (b) the single justice's discretionary denial of relief from the trial judge's interlocutory order may be presented to the full court unless the single justice has reported his action to the full court or has allowed a petition requesting interlocutory appellate review. Rollins Environmental Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- b, 330 N.E.2d 814 (1975). Foreign Auto Import, Inc. v. Renault Northeast, Inc., --- Mass. ---, --- c, 326 N.E.2d 888 (1975). The plaintiffs' brief undertakes to challenge the legality of the trial judge's interlocutory order, but, in the absence of authorization from a single justice of this court, the legality of the trial judge's interlocutory order cannot be before us for review. The plaintiffs have not asked the single justice to authorize appellate review of either the interlocutory order or his order of dismissal. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no basis to claim (and do not claim) that the single justice abused his discretion in not authorizing full court review at this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borman v. Borman
...had failed to make out a case for § 3 relief, not because § 3 was an inappropriate vehicle for appeal. But cf. Corbett v. Kargman, 369 Mass. 971, 343 N.E.2d 408 (1976) (appeal from discretionary denial of G.L. c. 231, § 118, relief).14 E. g., Blaisdell v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass. 753, 364 N.......
-
McMenimen v. Passatempo
...N.E.2d 606 (1985); Cappadona v. Riverside 400 Function Room, Inc., 372 Mass. 167, 169, 360 N.E.2d 1048 (1977); Corbett v. Kargman, 369 Mass. 971, 971-972, 343 N.E.2d 408 (1976); Rollins Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 368 Mass. 174, 181, 330 N.E.2d 814 (1975). McMenimen acknowledges ......
-
National Ass'n of Government Emp., Inc. v. Central Broadcasting Corp.
...Mass. 167, 169, 360 N.E.2d 1048 (1977); Kargman v. Superior Court, 371 Mass. 324, 329-330, 357 N.E.2d 300 (1976); Corbett v. Kargman, 369 Mass. 971, 343 N.E.2d 408 (1976). Ordinarily such appeal is possible only on the basis of a report by the judge who made the order. G.L. c. 231, § 111.3 ......
-
Patel v. Martin
...to seek review of the single justice's ruling by the panel. See McMenimen, supra at 189-190, 892 N.E.2d 287 ; Corbett v. Kargman, 369 Mass. 971, 971-972, 343 N.E.2d 408 (1976). However, in narrowly limited circumstances, where "an interlocutory order will interfere with rights in a way that......