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. 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). Analysis The undisputed fact here is that, at no time while the Appellants name was ranked first on the eligible list for police sergeant, was there a permanent, full-time vacancy for police sergeant, nor was such position filled on a temporary or acting basis. Rather, according to the Appellant there may have been a vacancy before the eligible list expired if the City and Sgt.
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
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 36, (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.