Motion for reconsideration or modification of decision

(2019) The title of Rule 27 was changed from “petition for rehearing” to “motion for reconsideration or modification of decision.” This revision more appropriately describes such filings which rarely, if ever, seek an oral argument and rehearing of a case before the justices and instead typically request a reconsideration or modification of the decision. The term “rescript” in Rule 27(a) was changed to “decision of the appellate court,” consistent with the new definitions in Rule 1(c) . This change clarifies that a motion is due 14 days after the date of the decision, making it clear to the parties that it is the decision that triggers commencement of the time period , and not the clerk’s issuance of the rescript to the lower court. Language relating to an “answer to a petition,” now referred to as a “response,” was moved to Rule 27(c) to promote clarity of the related procedures. Consistent with the revisions to other rules, Rule 27(b) was amended to include the new option for a word count using proportionally spaced font and to clarify that the page limit option follows the monospaced font requirement in Rule 20(a) . The first sentence of prior Rule 27(b), concerning the form of a “petition” as a letter addressed to the senior justice was deleted as inapplicable in light of the change to the title and form of these documents. Rule 27(c) is a new subdivision titled “Response.” The language for this subdivision comes from prior Rule 27(a) . The word “answer” is no longer used to signify a response to a motion for reconsideration or modification of decision. Lastly, this new subdivision clarifies the formatting requirements applicable to a requested response. Rule 27(d) is a new subdivision titled, “Filing and Service.” Under prior Rule 27(b) , litigants sometimes mailed the request directly to the senior justice and/or panel that decided the appeal instead of filing it in the appellate court clerk’s office. Adding language about filing and service requirements clarifies the appropriate filing procedures. Rule 27(e) is a new subdivision titled, “Ruling on Motion.” The contents of the subdivision are taken from prior Rule 27(a) . Placing this information in its own subdivision increases the readability of the Rules and makes it easier to refer to its requirements. Rule 27(f) , prior Rule 27(c) , was revised by striking the first sentence of prior Rule 27(c), which is redundant considering Rule 27(e) now authorizes the appellate court to order review or revision of opinions when a motion is allowed. The language in the remaining sentence is updated for consistency with the revisions made in the preceding subdivisions, e.g., “petition” is changed to “motion.” In addition, language regarding notification to the Supreme Judicial Court of any action on the motion is streamlined, and a requirement that this notification be made “promptly” is added. Further organizational and stylistic revisions were made to this rule in 2019 in accordance with a global review and revision of all of the Appellate Rules. These revisions are described in the 2019 Reporter’s Notes to Rule 1 . With regard to the preparation of the 2019 Reporter’s Notes to this Rule, see the first paragraph of the 2019 Reporter’s Notes to Rule 1 . For an overview of the 2019 amendments to the Rules and a summary of the global amendments to the Rules, see 2019 Reporter’s Notes to Rule 1, sections I. and II . (1986) This amendment provides for review of petitions for rehearing by the quorum or panel which decided the appeal. The purpose of the amendment is to conform Rule 27 to the actual practice in the appellate courts. (1985) The change from ten days to fourteen days after the date of the rescript for a petition for rehearing conforms the time period to that found in Fed.R.A.P. 40(a). Such conformity of time periods may aid practitioners.