Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Donald FRYE v. Laurence DUCOMB & another.1
Donald Frye (petitioner) purports to appeal pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial of his request for relief, from a single justice of this court, under G.L. c. 211, §§ 3 and 4A. He sought to have the single justice require that the Superior Court hold a prompt hearing on certain pending motions. The single justice also denied the petitioner's request for reconsideration.
The petitioner has not identified an interlocutory ruling of the trial court which he challenges. Rule 2:21, therefore, does not apply. When a petitioner seeks to appeal pursuant to rule 2:21 and we determine that the rule does not apply because no interlocutory ruling of the trial court has been identified, we usually authorize the petitioner to pursue the appeal from the judgment of the single justice according to the regular appellate process. We do not do so in this instance, in the interest of promoting judicial economy, because we conclude that the petitioner could not show that he had no adequate and effective avenue of relief other than G.L. c. 211, § 3. See Semedo v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1006, 709 N.E.2d 1110 (1999); Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022, 681 N.E.2d 815 (1997); Martineau v. Department of Correction, 423 Mass. 1007, 667 N.E.2d 1147 (1996); Callahan v. Superior Court, 410 Mass. 1001, 570 N.E.2d 1003 (1991). See also Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass.App.Ct. 7, 12-13, 627 N.E.2d 474 (1994). We also note that the petitioner did not state, in his request for relief under G.L. c. 211, §§ 3 and 4A, that he did not have any other appropriate avenue of relief.
We conclude, therefore, that the single justice neither abused his discretion nor committed a clear error of law. See Semedo v. Commonwealth, supra at 1007, 709 N.E.2d 1110.
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
RESCRIPT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)