Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs here were commissioners of the Bristol County Mosquito Control Project, which operates under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 252 and is subject to oversight by the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 252, 14D they had the authority to hire and set compensation rates for the Project's employees and to retain counsel. Plaintiffs also sought an order of mandamus requiring the Treasurer and Receiver General to pay those employees salary increases. A superior court judge granted summary judgment for the Board and Treasurer. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the record was insufficient to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Remanded. View "Comm'rs of Bristol County Mosquito Control Dist. v. State Reclamation & Mosquito Control Bd." on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped and subsequently arrested at a sobriety checkpoint conducted by the state police. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, third offense. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence related to his arrest, arguing that the officer who made the initial stop of the vehicles passing through the checkpoint - the screening officer - failed to comply with the applicable guidelines for that checkpoint. The district court judge allowed the motion. On appeal, the parties agreed that the judge based his decision to allow the motion to suppress on an erroneous finding of fact. The point of dispute was whether the screening officer had the authority to question Defendant before directing him to a secondary screening area. The Supreme Court vacated the order allowing the motion to suppress, holding that a factual finding must be made as to whether the officer's questions were proper or improper according to the guidelines applicable to the particular sobriety checkpoint at which Defendant was stopped. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Gray" on Justia Law

Leo Lawless, who held a license to practice pharmacy in the Commonwealth, had his license revoked by the Board of Registration in Pharmacy for a minimum of two years. Lawless failed to appear at an adjudicatory hearing, and the board entered an order by default. The board also imposed conditions on reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed the board's decision, holding (1) Lawless failed to demonstrate that the Board's decision to dispose of the adjudicatory hearing proceeding by default was improper; and (2) the board did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke Lawless's license as the appropriate sanction in this case. View "Lawless v. Bd. of Registration in Pharmacy" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for armed robbery and being a habitual offender. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the admission of his prearraignment statements that were made more than six hours after his arrest. A superior court judge allowed Defendant's motion to suppress after citing Commonwealth v. Rosario, which establishes a rule that a statement made by a person under arrest, if made beyond six hours after the arrest, will be inadmissible in evidence absent a valid waiver of the person's right to timely presentment to a court for arraignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the six-hour rule set out in Rosario applied to all of Defendant's statements at issue here because the statements were the product of police questioning to which the Rosario rule applied. View "Commonwealth v. Fortunato" on Justia Law