Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, (2008). 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). Parties Arguments The BPD argues that is undisputed that the Appellant was over the age of 40 at the time he took the 2019 civil service examination, from which the current eligible was established. In accordance with Chapter 43 of the Acts of 2007, the Appellant was ineligible to be considered for appointment as a Boston Police Officer absent relief from the Commission.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS Examination appeals are governed by Sections 22 through 24 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws. The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to FF Graham, establish that, as a matter of law, his appeal to this Commission is untimely and must be dismissed.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that this appeal must be dismissed. The gravamen of the Appellants appeal seeks to determine whether he received the ECT&E points that he claimed for his certifications (Q7) and trade licenses (Q9).
, 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); 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, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken 3 & 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, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues 4 of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
, 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
of imprisonment of 5 years or more, for 10 years following the disposition thereof, including termination of any period of incarceration or custody; (ii) information indicating custody status andplacement within the correction system for an individual who has been convicted of any offense and sentenced to any term of imprisonment, and at the time of the request: is serving a sentence of probation or incarceration, or is under the custody of the parole