first time hearing in Massachusetts

2024Relying on Tocci, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 133 , the motion judge entered separate and final judgment, pursuant to Mass. R.

2024Relying on Tocci, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 133 , the motion judge entered separate and final judgment, pursuant to Mass. R.

2006Lampron, supra at 268-270 . 22 Lampron also addressed for the first time the standard that a party must satisfy before a judge orders the issuance of a rule 17 (a) (2) summons before trial.

2005Shortly thereafter, we decided Lampron, supra, where we discussed for the first time the test that must be satis-fled before a court orders the issuance of rule 17 (a) (2) summonses. 2.

1964Of these the only ground that need concern us is the third and with respect to that “ [t]here was no error of law arising for the first time in the hearing of the motion.” Scano, petitioner, 338 Mass. 7, 9 .

1964There was no error of law arising for the first time in the hearing of the motion for a new trial.” Scano, petitioner, 338 Mass. 7, 9 .

1999See Boston Herald v. Superior Court, 421 Mass. 502 (1995); Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533 (1990). 1 The court today waves aside the substantial evidence of this mortal danger to our law enforcement officers with only a passing reference to the “danger for a police officer inherent in any auto stop,” ante at 664, quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 181, 183 (1999), and rejects for the first time a doctrine we have cited with approval ever since it was first established. n The court finds this rejection of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to be compel

1991The first time such a test was mentioned for jurisdictional purposes was in dicta in a footnote in Medi-Cab of Mass. Bay, Inc., 401 Mass. at 363-364 n.9; the decision in Rate Setting Commn. v. Division of Hearings Officers, 401 Mass. at 545-547 , only used the phrase in a direct quotation from the Medi-Cab of Mass. Bay, Inc. footnote.

1983Appellate counsel, ignoring the oft-quoted rule of the Supreme Judicial Court and this court that grounds not argued before the judge below will not be considered on appeal (see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 371 Mass. 862, 867 [1977]; Commonwealth v. Kelley, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 867 [1976]), seeks to raise for the first time the claim that the action of the prosecutor denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial.

1976“In accordance with the practice in this Commonwealth motions for new trial in both civil and criminal cases ordi *175 narily are heard on the facts as presented by affidavit.” Commonwealth v. Coggins, 324 Mass. 552, 557 , cert. denied, 338 U.S. 881 (1949).

1976“In accordance with the practice in this Commonwealth motions for new trial in both civil and criminal cases ordi *175 narily are heard on the facts as presented by affidavit.” Commonwealth v. Coggins, 324 Mass. 552, 557 , cert. denied, 338 U.S. 881 (1949).

1958Cerrato v. Miller, 264 Mass. 533 .

1954Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co., 321 Mass. 406, 412 ; Nussenbaum v. Chambers and Chambers Co., 322 Mass. 419, 425 ; Daddario v. City of Gloucester, 329 Mass. 297, 301 .

1954Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co., 321 Mass. 406, 412 ; Nussenbaum v. Chambers and Chambers Co., 322 Mass. 419, 425 ; Daddario v. City of Gloucester, 329 Mass. 297, 301 .

1954Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co., 321 Mass. 406, 412 ; Nussenbaum v. Chambers and Chambers Co., 322 Mass. 419, 425 ; Daddario v. City of Gloucester, 329 Mass. 297, 301 .

1929Baker v. Langley, 247 Mass. 127 .

1916Loveland v. Rand, 200 Mass. 142 .

1893Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453, 460 .

1893Sts. c. 153, § 8, (see Harrington v. Worcester, Leicester, & Spencer Street Railway, 157 Mass. 579 , and cases cited,) his decision is final upon all questions of fact, and where he declines to grant a new trial, in the proper exercise of his discretion, no exception lies.