Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Citation
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-09-30
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
- Qureshi v. Fiske Capital Management, Inc., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 463 (2003)
Full Text
680 charsThe judge of the District Court properly regarded as preclusive the Superior Court judgment that Qureshi occupied as a tenant at sufferance. There had been a final judgment on that question; Qureshi had been a party to the prior adjudication; the adjudication of Qureshi’s status was the same issue raised anew in the summary process proceeding; and the issue had been essential to the earlier judgment. The elements for judgment preclusion were present. See Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23-25 & n.2 (1988); Commissioner of the Dept. of Employment & Training v. Dugan, 428 Mass. 138, 142 (1998); Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 86, 98-99 (1999).5