Foote v. Process Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1967 |
| Citation | 353 Mass. 755,231 N.E.2d 574 |
| Parties | Harold B. FOOTE v. PROCESS EQUIPMENT CO., Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Willis A. Downs, Brockton, for defendant.
Seymour Bluhm, Plymouth, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing a report from the District Court judge who refused to allow a motion for postponement filed under Rule 15 of the Rules of the District Courts (1965). The opinion of the Appellate Division recites that: This is obviously a correct statement of the law. The Appellate Division opinion also discusses the aforementioned Rule 15. We see no need for any further discussion. There was no error.
Order dismissing report affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Box Pond Association v. Energy Facilities Siting Board
...to continue lies within the sound discretion of the hearing officer or the board. 980 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.02(6). See Foote v. Process Equip. Co., 353 Mass. 755 (1967). Cf. Commonwealth v. Super, 431 Mass. 492, 496-497 (2000). The refusal to grant a continuance will not constitute error abs......
-
Box Pond Association v Energy Facilities Siting Bd.
...to continue lies within the sound discretion of the hearing officer or the board. 980 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.02 6 See Foote v. Process Equip. Co., 353 Mass. 755 (1967). Cf. Commonwealth v. Super, 431 Mass. 492, 496-497 (2000). The refusal to grant a continuance will not constitute error absen......