Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from the denial of his application for a criminal complaint, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief.Petitioner filed an application seeking a criminal complaint against Respondent on three counts. The district court refused to issue the complaint, finding that no probable cause supported the first two counts. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition seeking relief from the determination that no probable cause existed to support the first count. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief under the circumstances. View "Davis v. Noonan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge finding Jane Furnas in contempt for failing either to refinance or to list property for sale according to an agreement, holding that there was no error.Furnas, who together with Anthony Cirone owned property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, filed a petition to partition the property. The parties settled on an agreement wherein Cirone would make monthly payments to Furnas, who would either keep the mortgage current and refinance or list the property for sale. The agreement was incorporated in a decree. Anthony later died and Plaintiff, his daughter acting as personal representative of his estate, filed a complaint for contempt alleging that Furnas had failed to comply with the terms of the decree. The judge found Furnas in civil contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Furnas's right of survivorship was terminated and that the agreement was enforceable by Cirone's estate. View "Furnas v. Cirone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, argued assault with intent to murder, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, holding that the trial judge prejudicially erred when it denied defense counsel's request to conduct a voir dire examination of a key witness.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the judge erred in denying his request to conduct a voir dire examination of a key prosecution witness when defense counsel received an anonymous text message suggesting that a witness had falsely identified Defendant as part of a plot to frame him. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the judge erred in denying defense counsel's request to conduct a voir dire examination of the key identification witness, and the error was prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Troche" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying Petitioner's petition for relief citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, Mass. Gen. Laws ch, 249, 5, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 28E, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), and Mass. R. Crim. P. 15, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner, who was awaiting trial on indictments for rape, strangulation or suffocation and other offenses, filed papers seeking review of the denial of certain pretrial motions and correction of other purported errors. The single justice denied all requests for relief. The Supreme Judicial Court denied Petitioner's appeal, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that review of his claims could not adequately be obtained in the trial court or on appeal from his conviction. View "Ardaneh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Petitioners' petition for extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.Petitioners obtained an order requiring Ara Eresian, Jr. to identify all real estate in which he held an interest, but Eresian did not comply with that other. The land court judge denied Petitioners' request for an arrest warrant authorizing entry into Eresian's home. Thereafter, Petitioners filed their petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 requesting that the single justice issue an order authorizing the land court judge to issue an order authorizing the arrest warrant. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to make the required showing that they lacked an adequate alternative remedy. View "VonIderstein v. Eresian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court judge dismissing the underlying declaratory judgment complaint in this declaratory judgment action regarding the scope of the Department of Housing and Community Development's (DHCD) authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7A, holding that dismissal was warranted.Plaintiffs - location housing authorities (LHAs) of various cities and towns, current and former executive directors of LHAs and others - sought a judgment declaring that DHCD exceeded its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7A by promulgating guidelines that govern contracts between an LHA and its executive director and making compliance with the guidelines a requirement to obtain contractual approval from DHCD. A superior court judge allowed DHCD's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that LHAs have authority to hire executive directors and "determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7. View "Fairhaven Housing Authority v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that an agreement entered into between Plaintiff Anthony Gattineri and Defendants Wynn MA, LLC and Wynn Resorts, Limited (collectively, Wynn) in San Diego California (the San Diego agreement) was unenforceable for reasons of public policy.Wynn entered into an option contract with FBT Everett Realty, LLC (FBT) to purchase a parcel of property. As Wynn's application for a casino license proceeded, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission discovered that there was a possibility of concealed ownership interests in FBT by a convicted felon with organized crime connections. In response, FBT lowered the purchase price for the parcel. The Commission approved the amended option agreement. Gattineri, a minority owner of FBT, opposed the price reduction and refused to sign the certificate required by the Commission. Gattineri alleged that at the San Diego meeting Wynn had agreed to pay Gattineri an additional $19 million in exchange for Gattineri signing the certificate. After the Commission awarded Wynn a casino license Gattineri brought suit claiming breach of the San Diego agreement because Wynn never paid Gattineri the promised $19 million. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the agreement was deliberately concealed from the Commission and inconsistent with the terms approved by the Commission; and (2) enforcement of such a secret agreement constituted a clear violation of public policy. View "Gattineri v. Wynn MA, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated a portion of its prior order remanding this case to the superior court for entry of judgments of not guilty on indictments charging unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, holding that this Court erred.Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, firearms-related convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions and ordered that the superior court judge enter judgments of not guilty on the indictments, holding that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York Stat Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2122 (2022), which was entered after Defendant's convictions, the trial court judge erred when he failed to instruct the jury that Defendant lacked of a firearms license. The Court then granted the Commonwealth's motion for reconsideration, vacated the relevant portion of its prior order, and remanded the case for a retrial on those indictments, holding that because the constitutional rule established in Bruen did not exist at the time Defendant was convicted, the Commonwealth should have an opportunity to retry Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Guardado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal of the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the appeal was moot.After judgment entered against Petitioner in a summary process action Petitioner appealed, challenging the denial of her motions to stay execution of that judgment on the basis of illness. The Housing Court denied relief. Petitioner then sought a stay on the same ground, which a single justice of the Appeals Court denied. Petitioner subsequently petitioned the single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court seeking a stay of execution on the basis of illness. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the matter, holding that the matter was moot because the eviction Petitioner sought to stay had already occurred. View "Kahyaoglu v. Sillari Enterprises LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 from an order of the housing court requiring him to make use and occupancy payments, holding that the single justice properly denied the petition.Petitioner appealed from the entry of final judgment in favor of Respondent in a summary process action. A housing court judge granted Petitioner's motion to waive the appeal bond and ordered him to make monthly use and occupancy payments during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner sought interlocutory review, and the single justice affirmed. Petitioner then brought the instant petition seeking a reduction in the monthly use and occupancy payments, without success. After the deadline passed for tendering the outstanding use and occupancy payments Petitioner filed a motion requesting an extension. The single justice denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly denied relief. View "Cummins Realty Trust v. O'Neill" on Justia Law