Foote v. Process Equipment Co.

Decision Date30 November 1967
Citation353 Mass. 755,231 N.E.2d 574
PartiesHarold B. FOOTE v. PROCESS EQUIPMENT CO., Inc.
CourtUnited 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: '(t)he decision as to whether or not a case shall be tried when reached or continued for hearing at a later time rests within sound judicial discretion. Morgan v. Steele, 242 Mass. 217 (136 N.E. 77) and cases cited.' 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
2 cases
  • Box Pond Association v. Energy Facilities Siting Board
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2001
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2001
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT