John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co.

28 Citing cases

  1. Bendslev v. Commissioner of Public Safety

    328 Mass. 443 (Mass. 1952)   Cited 7 times

    . . ." John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 272. The action of the judge in denying the motion for a temporary injunction, if not the equivalent of an interlocutory decree (see Bressler v. Averbuck, 322 Mass. 139, 143), was at least an order, and could be the subject of a report under § 30 provided the other requirements of that section are satisfied.

  2. Commonwealth v. Long

    482 Mass. 804 (Mass. 2019)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    "Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 362 Mass. 552, 557, 289 N.E.2d 852 (1972), quoting John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273, 34 N.E.2d 685 (1941). Interlocutory reports are not to "be permitted to become additional causes of the delays in criminal trials which are already too prevalent."

  3. Zaniboni v. Mass. Trial Court

    465 Mass. 1013 (Mass. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Declining to answer question reported under Mass. R. Civ. P. 64, as amended, 423 Mass. 1410

    Regardless, even on the merits, we think it is questionable whether the postjudgment rulings in this case necessitated a report as they do not present issues of such a serious nature as to overcome the appellate courts' reluctance to engage in piecemeal appellate review. See John Gilbert, Jr., Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273, 34 N.E.2d 685 (1941). See also Transamerica Ins. Group v. Turner Constr. Co., 33 Mass.App.Ct. 446, 447 n. 2, 601 N.E.2d 473 (1992).

  4. Commonwealth v. Cargill

    445 Mass. 329 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    The questions reported have no bearing on the issues for trial regarding the defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. See Commonwealth v. Fitta, 391 Mass. 394, 397 (1984), quoting John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273 (1941) ("Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing"). The case is moot because the defendant's prior bail was reinstated before the Superior Court judge reported the questions to the Appeals Court.

  5. Globe Newspaper v. Mass. Bay Transp Auth Retirement Bd.

    412 Mass. 770 (Mass. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    Discharging report and remanding case to Superior Court for further proceedings without addressing merits

    "Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273 (1941). Authors of a well-known text have, in explaining the concept, asked the question: "Does the matter so touch `the merits of the controversy' that it requires appellate determination before the trial can proceed further?

  6. Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz

    393 Mass. 150 (Mass. 1984)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 393 Mass. 150, 470 N.E.2d 116, 124 (1984), the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that implementation of the death penalty "impermissibly burden[ed] both the right against self-incrimination and the right to jury trial" guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution.

    "Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 362 Mass. 552, 557 (1972), quoting John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273 (1941). Interlocutory reports, however, may be appropriate when the alternative is a prolonged, expensive, involved, or unduly burdensome trial.

  7. Commonwealth v. Fitta

    391 Mass. 394 (Mass. 1984)   Cited 32 times
    Holding disparity of sentences proscribed by statutes for indecent exposure, G.L. c. 272, § 53, and open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 16, not violative of due process

    See also People v. Ford, 417 Mich. 66 (1982); State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599 (1979). Finally, we repeat that "'[i]nterlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing.' John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273 [1941]. Bendslev v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 328 Mass. 443, 445 [1952].

  8. Commonwealth v. Andover

    391 N.E.2d 1225 (Mass. 1979)   Cited 16 times

    Normally, a report of an interlocutory order may be made only by the Justice who made the interlocutory ruling. G.L.c. 231, § 112. Cf. John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271 (1941). The single justice properly reported the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment to this court.

  9. Commonwealth v. Snow

    363 Mass. 778 (Mass. 1973)   Cited 49 times

    The second reason is that any answer which we might give to this question is not likely to be material in the ultimate decision of these cases. John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 273. If we were to hold that the portion of the now repealed § 213 which is quoted in the question violated any or all of the cited constitutional provisions, it would not follow that the arrest of any of the defendants would be unlawful. The reasons for this statement are evident in the discussion of the next question below.

  10. Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., Inc.

    362 Mass. 552 (Mass. 1972)   Cited 23 times

    "Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 273. Bendslev v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 328 Mass. 443, 445. This test is not met in the present case where an interlocutory decision by this court might avoid the necessity of holding what would appear to be a very short trial which the parties have already avoided for almost five years. "Where conducive to justice, a court may set aside a stipulation made by the parties."