Solimine v. Davidian
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Care and Protection of Penelope (Mass. 2018)
- Higgins v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n (Mass. 2018)
- VEENA SHARMA v. STUART COLE & Another. (Mass. App. Ct. 2023)
- Higgins v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Mass. 2018)
- Kibbe v. Town of Douglas Zoning Board of Appeals (Massachusetts Superior Court 2004)
- Rasheed v. Commonwealth (Mass. 2003)
- Fuentes v. Commonwealth (Mass. 2002)
- Levine v. Chief Justice of the District Court Department of the Trial Court (Mass. 2001)
- Forte v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1999)
- Hickey v. Grandine (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998)
- Davis v. Tabachnick (Mass. 1997)
- Maza v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Solimine, acting pro se, lost on his claim against the respondent, James C. Davidian, in the District Court. Solimine’s unfocused pro se petition seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, raised no issue which could not have been considered in the ordinary appellate process available within the District Court. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, cannot be obtained when someone in Solimine’s position has (or had) the opportunity to pursue ordinary appellate review. See Pandey v. Pudlo, 416 Mass. 1008 (1993). The fact that Solimine is acting pro se is also of no significance because he is held to the same standards to which litigants with counsel are held. Mmoe v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 617, 620 (1985).
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.