seal

Court Case Record RICHARD H. ADAMS vs. JOANNE ADAMS 2012-J-0354 UID(4827)


RICHARD H. ADAMS vs. JOANNE ADAMS Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0354


 
Case Number2012-J-0354
Case TitleRICHARD H. ADAMS vs. JOANNE ADAMS
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyWorcester
CourtWorcester Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date09/26/2012
Close Date02/14/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Barry A. Bachrach, Esquire Kathryn A. Toomey, Esquire Michael S. Ferguson, EsquireRichard H. AdamsPlaintiff/Petitioner
Joanne AdamsPro Se Defendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
09/26/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Richard H. Adams.
10/09/2012 #2 Response to Petition with attachments, filed by Joanne Adams. ^
10/17/2012 #3 ORDER: The defendant has filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.), seeking review of an order of the Superior Court (No. 11-01893; Wrenn, J.), in which the court denied his Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction. In light of the fact that the parties have made conflicting representations to this court about the basis for the court's rulings in the case, (including specifically the relevance and effect of a concurrent district court summary process action, No. 201162SU000053), the matter is remanded to the motion judge for findings of fact and rulings of law, to be made on or before November 20, 2012. (Hanlon, J.). *Notice/Attest/Wrenn, J.
11/19/2012 #4 Memorandum and decision providing findings of fact and rulings of law on this court's March 16, 2012 Order received from Worcester Superior Court.^
11/28/2012 #5 Motion for leave to file supplemental brief in support of plaintiff's petition for relief under G.L.c. 231, §118 (first paragraph), filed by Richard H. Adams.^
11/30/2012 #6 RE#5: Allowed. (Hanlon, J.) *Notice.
02/11/2013 Letter from Attorney Michael S. Ferguson re: inquiring as to the status of appeal.^
02/14/2013 RE#6: The single justice on 11/30/12, entered an order denying the petition. Due to a clerical oversight, the action was not docketed timely. *Notice.
02/14/2013 RE#1: Denied for the reasons well explained in the Superior Court judge's memorandum of decision, dated 11/16/12. (Entered 11/30/12). (Hanlon, J.). *Notice/Attest/Wrenn, J.