From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dowd v. Town of Dedham

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Sep 17, 2003
440 Mass. 1007 (Mass. 2003)

Opinion

SJC-08770

September 17, 2003.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts, Appeal from order of single justice.

Thomas F. Dowd, pro se.

Joyce Frank, for the defendants, submitted a brief.



The petitioner, Thomas F. Dowd, filed a document entitled "Pro Se Appellant's Verified Emergency Appeal," which a single justice of this court treated as a G.L.c. 211, § 3, petition, and denied without a hearing. On appeal, the petitioner asks this court to determine that a town official violated G.L.c. 56, § 12, and to order the Attorney General to "convene" a grand jury to seek an indictment against the official for violation of that statute. Not only was this relief not requested in the petition filed with the single justice, see Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002), but the petitioner alleges no abuse of discretion or other error by the single justice in the judgment rendered on the specific claims that were before her. Indeed, the petitioner's brief on appeal fails to include any meaningful argument in support of either the claims that were before the single justice or the claims that he now presses before the full court. See Mass. R. A. P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1012 (1998).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Dowd v. Town of Dedham

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Sep 17, 2003
440 Mass. 1007 (Mass. 2003)
Case details for

Dowd v. Town of Dedham

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS F. DOWD vs . TOWN OF DEDHAM another

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Sep 17, 2003

Citations

440 Mass. 1007 (Mass. 2003)
795 N.E.2d 572

Citing Cases

Watson v. Walker

In these cases, the petitioner has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any such error, and the judgments may…

Snele v. Lee

Instead, he requests wholly different relief, namely, an order that the default judgment be vacated and that…