Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case came before the Supreme Court on Plaintiff's application for direct appellate review of a decision of the superior court affirming a decision of the contributory retirement appeal board. The case required the Court to decide whether the $200 fixed annual compensation threshold set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 3(2)(d) applies to elected officials who are otherwise eligible to become members of the contributory retirement system for public employees and whether health insurance contributions and professional association dues paid on behalf of such an official are to be considered as fixed annual compensation for the purposes of this subsection. The Court affirmed the superior court, holding (1) the $200 threshold applies to "any person," including an elected official, otherwise eligible for membership under chapter 32; and (2) the value of health insurance contributions and association dues does not qualify as fixed annual compensation. View "Rotondi v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd." on Justia Law

Defendant filed a petition seeking reversal of an order of the superior court that denied Defendant's motion to correct his jail time credit to include fourteen days spent in custody awaiting trial on charges pertaining to various property crimes. The motion was filed nearly five years after Defendant had completed his sentence on an unrelated rape conviction and sought to apply the fourteen days of credit to that sentence. The receipt of such credit would have had the effect of granting Defendant an earlier release date on the rape conviction. As a consequence, Defendant no longer would have been a lawful "prisoner" at the time the Commonwealth filed a petition for his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person and, therefore, would not have been subject to such a commitment. The superior court concluded that Defendant's motion was untimely and moot. A single justice denied his petition for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claim for jail time credit should have been raised while he still was serving his sentence on the rape conviction when, if appropriate, relief could have been afforded. View "Williams v. Superintendent, Mass. Treatment Ctr." on Justia Law

This appeal, filed by brothers Gary and Dennis Baasch (Appellants), concerned disputed land located in Howard County. After a bench trial, the district court for Howard County denied Gary Baasch's counterclaim for quiet title. The court found that husband and wife Paul and Betty Lou Obermiller (Appellees) owned all the land they claimed to own, that the fence constructed by Appellants was on Appellees' land, and that Gary Baasch did not own any of the disputed land. The court also found that Appellants had trespassed, ordered them to remove the fence, and enjoined them from blocking access to the land owned by Appellees. The Supreme Court vacated the board's decision, holding that the district court correctly concluded (1) Appellees were the rightful owners of the disputed land; (2) because Appellees owned the land, Appellants' intentional installation of a fence on the land constituted a continuous trespass; and (3) Appellees were entitled to an injunction. Remanded. View "Schoeller v. Bd. of Registration of Funeral Dirs. & Embalmers" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit in superior court claiming that she and her son entered into an oral that granted her a life estate in certain property. Petitioner sought to enforce the oral agreement or, in the alternative, recover of a theory of quantum meruit. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The appeals court remanded for proceedings as to whether Petitioner should recover under a theory of quantum meruit. While the case was pending on remand, Petitioner filed a petition in the county court against the judge assigned to the matter, in both his individual and official capacities, and against the Commonwealth. Petitioner raised a number of claims concerning the judge's rulings and conduct, including an assertion that he had acted in an unlawful and biased manner. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's claims of judicial bias and declaratory judgment claims should have been addressed through the ordinary trial and appellate process; (2) the judge was absolutely immune from Petitioner's request for monetary damages; and (3) Petitioner's allegations of conspiracy were insufficient to overcome the judge's absolute immunity. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The sole issue in this appeal was whether an uncontroverted affidavit attesting to the statutory form "Affidavit of Sale under Power of Sale in Mortgage" was sufficient to show compliance with the power of sale for the purpose of establishing the right of possession by motion for summary judgment in a summary process action. A judge in the housing court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, and the defendant, Oliver Hendricks, appealed. Hendricks asserted error in the grant of summary judgment to Fannie Mae, where the statutory form failed to set forth "fully and particularly" the acts taken to exercise the power of sale in Hendricks's mortgage, as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 15. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) because the statutory form that Fannie Mae offered in support of its motion for summary judgment was sufficient within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 8, it made out a prima facie case of compliance with chapter 244, 14; and (2) because there was no genuine issue of material fact to be decided, Fannie Mae was entitled to summary judgment. View "Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the crime of leaving the scene of an accident where death resulted requires the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant knew he collided with a person. Because the superior court judge initially agreed with the Commonwealth that it had no such burden, he found Defendant guilty. However, the judge allowed Defendant's motion for relief from judgment on the ground that the Commonwealth did have such a burden of proof, and ordered a judgment of acquittal to be entered. The Commonwealth appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, 24(2)(a 1/2)(2), the Commonwealth must prove the defendant knew he collided with or otherwise caused injury to a person. View "Commonwealth v. Daley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. In addition, Defendant was convicted after a jury-waived trial of violating the armed career criminal statute. The only ammunition in evidence was that which was loaded in the firearm. The appeals court (1) reversed the convictions on the ground that certificates of ballistics analysis were admitted in violation of Defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him; and (2) directed the entry of judgment for Defendant on the loaded firearm charge on the ground that, where he had been acquitted of possessing the ammunition that was loaded into the firearm, retrial on that charge would violate double jeopardy protections and principles of issue preclusion. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant's acquittal on the ammunition charge did not preclude retrial on the loaded firearm charge. View "Commonwealth v. Charles" on Justia Law

After a mistrial at which the jury was deadlocked, Defendant was retried and convicted of two indictments charging murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court properly disallowed Defendant's claims that his motion to dismiss the indictments, filed before retrial, because the Commonwealth presented legally sufficient evidence at his first trial; (2) a second trial in these circumstances did not violate constitutional and common-law prohibitions against double jeopardy; (3) the trial judge did not err in his evidentiary rulings or in failing to instruct the jury pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bowden. View "Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, armed assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, and various firearms offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and declined to grant him a new trial or to reduce the verdict to a lesser degree of guilt, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the peremptory challenge of an African-American juror; (2) the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence concerning Defendant's juvenile record, but the error was harmless; (3) although some of the prosecutor's statements during closing argument may have exceeded the bounds of permissible argument, they were unlikely to have affected the jury's verdicts; (4) the trial judge did not err in concluding that Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the use of force in defense of another; and (5) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on Defendant's assertion that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. View "Commonwealth v. Scott" on Justia Law

Petitioners, attorneys who were the subject of disciplinary proceedings, challenged the validity of two aspects of the Commonwealth's workers' compensation, claiming (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, 7C, which authorizes the senior judge of the department of industrial accidents to suspend the right of an attorney to "practice or appear before the department," violated the separation of powers explicitly provided for under article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) 452 Mass Code Regs. 1.19(3), which precludes recovery of an employee's costs and attorney's fees if the employee does not accept an insurer's offer to pay the full amount of the compensation claim, conflicted with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15, 13A(5), which governs the award of attorney's fees and expenses where a claim proceeds to the hearing stage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) chapter 152, section 7C is invalid as a violation of article 30 insofar as it authorizes the senior judge of the department to suspend attorneys from appearing before the department; and (2) section 1.19(3) is a valid interpretation of chapter 152, section 13A. Remanded. View "Ellis v. Dep't of Indus. Accidents" on Justia Law