Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Mass. App. Ct. 848

Commonwealth v. Sheridan

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided February 19, 1980

Massachusetts Appeals Court · decided 1980-02-19

Relies on Dwyer v. Globe Newspaper Co. · Lolos v. Berlin · Malaguti v. Planning Board

Decided 1980-02-19

¶1None of the questions sought to be raised by the motion for a new trial or passed on by the trial judge in the course of denying that motion has been argued within the meaning of Rule 1:13 of the Appeals Court, as amended, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (1975), or within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16 (a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14 (1958). We have, nevertheless, examined all the stated grounds of the motion in light of the trial transcript and the judge’s findings and rulings on the motion and find no merit to any aspect of the appeal. Accordingly, the order denying the motion is affirmed.

¶2So ordered.

/9/massappct/848 · .json · Public domain