Narrative Opinion Summary
On March 6, 1980, the court addressed a motion by the defendants under Rule 16(g) to affirm the lower court's judgment, which vacated a lis pendens filed by the plaintiff on property owned by some defendants. Justice Doris recused himself from the case. The plaintiff was represented by Oster, Groff & Prescott, while various attorneys represented the defendants, including Citizens Savings Bank and Ralph and Marion Camuso. After considering the arguments and the plaintiff's brief, the court concluded that the nature of the plaintiff's action did not warrant the filing of a lis pendens. Consequently, the court granted the motion to affirm the lower court's judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Rule 16(g) in Affirming Lower Court Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Rule 16(g) to affirm the lower court's decision to vacate a lis pendens filed by the plaintiff, indicating that the plaintiff's action did not justify maintaining the lis pendens.
Reasoning: On March 6, 1980, the court addressed a motion by the defendants under Rule 16(g) to affirm the lower court's judgment, which vacated a lis pendens filed by the plaintiff on property owned by some defendants.
Judicial Recusal and Case Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Doris recused himself from participating in the case, which proceeded without his involvement.
Reasoning: Justice Doris recused himself from the case.
Justification for Filing a Lis Pendenssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff's action was not of a nature that justified the filing of a lis pendens, leading to the affirmation of the judgment vacating it.
Reasoning: After considering the arguments and the plaintiff's brief, the court concluded that the nature of the plaintiff's action did not warrant the filing of a lis pendens.