Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In an underlying care and protection case in the juvenile court, following a seventy-two hour hearing, the judge granted temporary custody of a child to the Department of Children and Families. The child's mother filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking relief from that order. A single justice of the Supreme Court summarily denied the petition without a hearing and without addressing the substantive merits of the mother's claims. The mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the single justice's declining to exercise the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence to disturb the juvenile court judge's ruling. View "In re Danielle" on Justia Law

The named Plaintiffs, African-American and Hispanic police officers, brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants, the Commonwealth and the division of human resources, alleging that the division engaged in racial discrimination through the creation and administration of an examination for candidates seeking promotion to the position of police sergeant. A superior court judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Commonwealth had not waived its sovereign immunity from suit and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs had failed to state any claim on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court concluded (1) Plaintiffs' claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4(4A) should not have been dismissed because it alleged adequately that Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' right to be free of racial discrimination in opportunities for promotion; but (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed. View "Lopez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought employment as a police officer with the Boston police department. On three occasions, the department extended conditional offers of appointment to Plaintiff, each of which was contingent upon her successful completion of a psychological screening process. On each occasion, department psychiatrists found Plaintiff psychologically unqualified for the job and bypassed her for appointment as a police officer. The civil service commission concluded that the department failed to meet its burden of establishing a reasonable justification for bypassing Plaintiff and ordered that her name be restored to the department's list of individuals certified for appointment. The superior court vacated the commission's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the superior court correctly found that the commission erred in the manner in which it considered expert testimony from another proceeding; but (2) because the commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence independent of this extraneous evidence, the error did not prejudice the department. View "Boston Police Dep't v. Kavaleski" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation in the stabbing death of her boyfriend. Defendant appealed from both her conviction and the denial of her motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial because (1) on multiple occasions, over objection, the trial judge erroneously allowed the Commonwealth to introduce highly prejudicial evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts; and (2) the judge later declined to provide an instruction as to the excessive use of force in self-defense that was supported by the evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Anestal" on Justia Law

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