Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). 3 Analysis / Conclusion At a minimum, the undisputed facts here show that, during part of the one-year period in which the Appellant was required to have resided continuously in Lawrence to qualify for Lawrence residency preference, he had signed a lease stating that he resided in Worcester.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249, (2008). Post v. Belmont Country Club, Inc. 60 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 6460647 (2004). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Applicable Civil Service Law G.L. c. 31, 2(b) addresses appeals to the Commission regarding persons aggrieved by 2 any decision, action or failure to act by the administrator, except as limited by the provisions of section twenty-four relating to the grading of examinations .
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 3 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). The non-moving party must offer specific facts which establish a reasonable hope of prevailing after an evidentiary hearing in order to survive a motion for summary decision. Id.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that, for the reasons stated within HRDs Motion for Summary Judgment, this appeal must be dismissed. The gravamen of the Appellants appeal seeks to determine whether his answers to three multiple choice questions on the TK and SJ component of the exam were correctly graded and recorded.
, 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole
, 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) 2 (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (denying motion to dismiss due to factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) 3 ANALYSIS Somervilles residency preference is governed by G.L.c.31, 58,3, which states, in pertinent part: [U]pon written request of the appointing authority to the administrator [HRD], the administrator shall, when certifying names from said eligible list for original appointment to the police force or fire force of a city or town, place the names of all persons who have resided in said city or town