Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brossard v. West Roxbury Division of the District Court Department
Citations: 629 N.E.2d 295; 417 Mass. 183; 1994 Mass. LEXIS 87
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; March 1, 1994; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court
Carlos A. Brossard appealed a decision from a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which denied his petition for relief from an abuse prevention order issued against him under G.L. c. 209A at the request of Sienora Haynes. The order mandated that Brossard refrain from abuse, not contact Haynes, and stay away from her home and workplace. The appeal record was disorganized and included numerous unsupported allegations, failing to comply with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court emphasized that pro se litigants must adhere to the same procedural rules as those represented by counsel. The court's review of the single justice’s decision is limited to identifying any abuse of discretion or clear legal error. Brossard's primary argument was that he and Haynes did not have a "substantive dating relationship," which he believed precluded her from seeking a protective order. However, evidence provided by Brossard himself indicated that he considered Haynes a "former girlfriend" and acknowledged a sexual relationship lasting fourteen months. The court noted that the nature of their relationship, as defined by Brossard, did not affect the legal standing for Haynes to seek the order, particularly as the statute allows for multiple concurrent "substantive dating relationships." Ultimately, the court found no legal error or abuse of discretion in the single justice's denial of relief. The plaintiff claims that a protective order against him was vacated at the complainant's request under Mass. R. Civ. P. 41(a). He states that the complainant dismissed the order several months later by signing a notice of voluntary dismissal and sending a letter to the District Court. However, the record does not clarify the specifics of what the District Court received or the timing. According to G.L. c. 209A, § 3, a court may modify its order upon motion by either party, indicating that judicial action is necessary to modify an order issued under this statute. The District Court did not act on the request for voluntary dismissal. The document concludes with the affirmation of the judgment, noting that constitutional arguments raised but not addressed in lower courts or lacking factual support will not be commented on. Additionally, the plaintiff's pro se petition is described as confusing and filled with unsupported allegations, and he did not provide a transcript of the District Court proceedings. Rule 41(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure allows for voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff without a court order under certain conditions.