Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co.
Angelo Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Absent an abuse of discretion, there is no error in denying a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. In his brief the plaintiff states, "If my appeal had to be based on an abuse of discretion, I do not think that I could mount one, because I cannot bring myself to think that the... [single justice’s] decision, here appealed, constitutes an abuse of discretion.” We agree with the plaintiff that the denial of his petition was not an abuse of discretion.
We have, nonetheless, examined the records before the Appeals Court. All the issues raised by the plaintiff before us are presently pending in that court. We think, therefore, the plaintiff’s substantive rights are protected through the normal appellate process.
However, in our review it appeared that there is no appeal presently pending from an assessment of two hundred and fifty dollars costs on March 29, 1978. We think the plaintiff is entitled to bring new proceedings in the county court to determine the correctness of that assessment. The plaintiff should serve the Attorney General instead *908 of the present defendent in his new petition.
Angelo Cefalu, pro se. James F. McHugh for the defendant.
The denial of the petition is affirmed with leave to file a new petition as described herein.
So ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.