# Pinkowitz v. Edinburg

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 19, 1986 · 22 Mass. App. Ct. 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709883

## Case

- **Full name:** Jo-Ann Edinburg Pinkowitz & Others vs. Dorothy B. Edinburg & Another
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** May 19, 1986
- **Citations:** 22 Mass. App. Ct. 180; 492 N.E.2d 1153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Greaney, Brown, Smith
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709883

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring). I fully agree with the court’s con-
clusion that the defendants’ arguments are without substance. It is fair to infer from the record in this case that once again painfully and regrettably the “hired gun” prototype appears on the scene. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 559, 564 (1985) (Brown, J., concurring).
Double costs and substantial counsel fees on appeal are certainly warranted here. I applaud this court’s making manifest its displeasure with lawyers who effect unnecessary delays in legal proceedings in order to shield their clients’ inaction. I also am pleased that this time the court has driven a stake through the heart of that unprofessional, but all too frequent, practice of filing a motion for a continuance “pending the passage of time.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709883. Public record. Not legal advice.