seal

Court Case Record RICHARD P. MCCLURE & others vs. PAUL COHEN, INDV. & AS TOWN MGR. FOR THE TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, MA & others 2011-J-0240 UID(49dd)


RICHARD P. MCCLURE & others vs. PAUL COHEN, INDV. & AS TOWN MGR. FOR THE TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, MA & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0240


 
Case Number2011-J-0240
Case TitleRICHARD P. MCCLURE & others vs. PAUL COHEN, INDV. & AS TOWN MGR. FOR THE TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, MA & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/06/2011
Close Date06/20/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Richard P. McClurePlaintiff/Petitioner
328 other registered voters of CPlaintiff
Alan AtwoodPlaintiff
Peter AtwoodPlaintiff
Phyllis AtwoodPlaintiff
Nancy D'arcyPlaintiff
Rachel GoyettePlaintiff
Robert GoyettePlaintiff
James TaggartPlaintiff
Raymond Van LiewPlaintiff
Roland Van LiewPlaintiff
Sul Van LiewPlaintiff
Jonathan M. Silverstein, EsquirePaul Cohen, Indv. & as Town Mgr. forDefendant/Respondent
Jonathan M. Silverstein, EsquireElizabeth Delaney, Town Clerk for the TownDefendant/Respondent
Jonathan M. Silverstein, EsquireGeorge Dixon, Jr., Indv. & as SelectmanDefendant/Respondent
Jonathan M. Silverstein, EsquireJon Kurland, Indv. & as Selectman foDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/06/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Richard P. Mcclure.
06/06/2011 #2 Motion to extend period for filing supporting memorandum of law and addendum for good cause shown, filed by Richard P. Mcclure.
06/13/2011 #3 Letter from Attorney Richard P. McClure re: Request for copy of motion to extend period for filing supporting memorandum of law and addendum for good cause shown and for Court to not act on motion until copy received.
06/14/2011 #4 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Town of Chelmsford. *ac
06/20/2011 RE#1: To the extent the petition seeks review of the allowance of the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel, it is not properly before the Single Justice, as the order is immediately appealable under the doctrine of present execution. See Borman v. Borman, 378 Mass. 775, 779-780 (1979). Concerning the remaining issues, and after review of the papers submitted, including the defendant's opposition, all other requested relief is denied as the petitioner has not established, as is his burden, that the judge committed a clear error of law or abuse of discretion. Jet-Line Services, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988). (Katzmann, J.). Notice/attest/Smith, J. *Notice.