green
Positive treatment
Issue: petitioner can raise claimMA ↗
Issue: public right doctrineMA ↗
36.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Negron v. Superintendent, Northeastern Correctional Center
Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), quoting Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOSEPH F. DeLONG v. REGISTER OF PROBATE FOR MIDDLESEX COUNTY
"Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available." Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Negron v. Commissioner of Correction
"Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available." Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Navom v. Clerk of the Superior Court in Middlesex County
Similarly, "[r]elief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available." Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cichocki v. Town of Rehoboth
Similarly, "[r]elief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available." Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vinnie v. Commonwealth
"Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available." Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kim v. Rosenthal
Similarly, “[r]elief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Birks v. Green
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anzalone v. Administrative Office of the Trial Court
Even if “the act sought to be compelled is ministerial in nature, relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary and may not be granted except to prevent a failure of justice in instances where there is no other adequate remedy.” Id., quoting Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. McClerkin
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montefusco v. Commonwealth
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chandra v. Foster
Similarly, “[rjelief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sagar v. Middlesex Division of the Probate & Family Court Department of the Trial Court
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, ante 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999). “[E]yen if the act sought to be compelled is ministerial in nature, relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary and may not be granted except to prevent a failure of justice in instances where there is no other adequate remedy.” Murray v. Commonwealth, supra, quoting Forte v. Commonwealth, supra. Similarly, “[rjelief pursuant to G.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Murray v. Commonwealth
Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999), and cases cited.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Restucci v. Appeals Court
Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 1014 (2001); Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. 1004 (2000); Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Diggs v. Commonwealth
Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied.” Diggs v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1999), quoting Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Levine v. Chief Justice of the District Court Department of the Trial Court
L. c. 231 A, § 1, for abuse of discretion (Bates v. Superior Court, 432 Mass. 1021 , 1022 & n.3 [2000]); and his denial of relief under the public right doctrine (Tax Equity Alliance for Mass. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 423 Mass. 708, 714 [1996] [under public right doctrine, relief sought is in nature of mandamus]) for abuse of discretion (see Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 [1999] [single justice’s denial of writ of mandamus reviewed for abuse of discretion]), or other error of law (see Brewster v. Sherman, 195 Mass. 222 [1907]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Forte v. Reilly
(2×)
See Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 , 711 N.E.2d 880 (1999) (rescript) (so noting). 2 There is no conceivable basis for an injunction here designed simply to provide Forte with a second round of such review.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marcus B. Diggs, Jr.
v.
Commonwealth
v.
Commonwealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Jun 22, 1999.
Marcus B. Diggs, Jr., pro se.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
A single justice of this court denied the petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and the petitioner appealed. As the petitioner’s direct appeal from his convictions is currently pending before the Appeals Court, he has availed himself of an adequate and effective remedy other than a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, through which he may seek the requested relief. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996), and cases cited. “We have emphasized that relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and may not be sought as a substitute for normal appellate review. Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977). Where a petitioner can raise his claim in the normal course of trial and appeal, relief will be denied.” Foley v. Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 398 Mass. 800, 802 (1986). Notwithstanding his pro se status, the petitioner is held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel. Maza v. Commonwealth, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the single justice.
So ordered.
The case was submitted on brief.