From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stokosa v. Waltuch

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 19, 1979
6 Mass. App. Ct. 975 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)

Opinion

January 19, 1979.

Herbert Murphy for the plaintiff.


The plaintiff has appealed from the denial of two motions filed after the entry of judgment in this action. 1. In the first motion the plaintiff sought an order directing the clerk "to include in the execution interest to the date that the execution is issued." That motion was properly denied for the reasons stated by the judge in his findings and order. 2. The one page of the plaintiff's brief devoted to the second motion (by which he sought an order under Mass.R.Civ.P. 69, 365 Mass. 836; see Geehan v. Trawler Arlington, Inc., 371 Mass. 815, 817-818 [1977]) does not present an appellate argument within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), 367 Mass. 921 (1975), and brings nothing before us for consideration. Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14 (1958).

Orders affirmed.


Summaries of

Stokosa v. Waltuch

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 19, 1979
6 Mass. App. Ct. 975 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
Case details for

Stokosa v. Waltuch

Case Details

Full title:JOHN STOKOSA vs. EILEEN WALTUCH another

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 19, 1979

Citations

6 Mass. App. Ct. 975 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
384 N.E.2d 1250

Citing Cases

Weinstein v. Steigman

Accordingly, written briefs not in substantial compliance with Rule 64(f) will not be received by this…

Tatar v. Schuker

His unsupported claim that, by alluding to issues of fact in his motion for relief from the first judgment of…