NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale.
Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 20-P-1385 MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY vs. BONNIE CURRAN & another.1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The Medford Housing Authority (MHA) appeals from a Superior Court judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants, Bonnie Curran and the Civil Service Commission (commission), affirming the commission's order reinstating Curran's employment with the MHA. On appeal, the MHA claims that the commission improperly substituted its judgment for that of the MHA and drew inferences that were not supported by substantial evidence. The MHA further claims that the Superior Court judge applied the wrong standard of review. We affirm. Background. We summarize the commission's relevant factual findings. The MHA is a municipal corporation that provides lowincome housing in the city of Medford. Curran worked for the
0 comments:
Post a Comment