Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-05-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588591/taylor-v-burke/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Full Text
796 charsThe record is sparse. No subsidiary findings were filed by the judge. The tenant’s brief offers no recitation of the evidence underlying the judgment. No brief or motion was filed in this court on behalf of the landlord. The record here reveals only a letter from the landlord’s counsel, indicating that his office would not be appearing on behalf of the landlord, and that the landlord would be appearing pro se. The court notified counsel that, pending receipt of a motion to withdraw, indicating service upon the client and disclosing the client’s address, counsel would remain of record. No such motion was filed. Just prior to oral argument, counsel presented a handwritten request to address the court. The request was denied after consultation with the tenant, who objected to the request.