Robinson v. Commissioner of Dept. of Youth Services
| Decision Date | 23 January 1979 |
| Citation | 384 N.E.2d 1253,7 Mass.App.Ct. 847 |
| Parties | Daniel ROBINSON v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Joseph F. Annunziata, Jr., Framingham, for plaintiff.
Nicholas P. Arenella, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Elizabeth E. Laing, Asst. Atty. Gen., with him), for defendant.
Before KEVILLE, ROSE and PERRETTA, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
Since the appellant has not shown good cause for his failure to pay the docket fee within the time prescribed by Mass.R.A.P. 10(a), 365 Mass. 853-854 (1974), or the existence of a meritorious appeal, we affirm the order of the single justice denying the appellant's motion to docket his appeal late. See Vyskocil v. Vyskocil, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- A, 379 N.E.2d 1090 (1978); Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 377, 379, 330 N.E.2d 488 (1975); Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp., 5 Mass.App.Ct. ---, --- - --- B, 359 N.E.2d 634 (1977).
So ordered.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1978) 2242, 2245-2246.
b. Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1977) 69, 86-93.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tumim v. Palefsky
-
Maza v. Com.
...late. See, e.g., Aspen Square Management v. Walker, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 970, 644 N.E.2d 237 (1994); Robinson v. Commissioner of Dep't of Youth Servs., 7 Mass.App.Ct. 847, 384 N.E.2d 1253 (1979); Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 377, 330 N.E.2d 488 (1975). The plaintiff......