Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Police officers observed Defendant sharing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette with two others on a park bench. The officers seized the cigarette and conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's person and backpack. In the backpack they found marijuana with a total weight of less than one ounce. Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and a corresponding drug violation in or near a school or park. The municipal court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search was not a lawful search incident to arrest, as the officers had no basis to arrest Defendant before searching him. View " Commonwealth v. Jackson" on Justia Law

This case involved multiple litigations among three parties - Insurer, insured Mortgagee, and Homeowner - arising out of a defect in the title to Homeowner's home. Insurer brought suit in the land court on behalf of Mortgagee seeking to reform the deed to the property or to equitably subrogate Homeowner's interest in the property behind Mortgagee's mortgage. Homeowner initiated suit in the superior court against Mortgagee. Eventually, all claims in both actions became part of a federal court case, which settled. Thereafter, Mortgagee filed a complaint against Insurer in the U.S. district court seeking to recover from Insurer for the costs Mortgagee incurred in defending against Homeowner's claims. The judge determined Insurer had no obligation under its title insurance policy to pay Mortgagee's defense costs but certified two questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that, under Massachusetts law (1) a title insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured in the entire lawsuit where one claim is within the scope of the title insurance coverage and other claims are not; and (2) a title insurer that initiates litigation similarly does not have a duty to defend the insured against all reasonably foreseeable counterclaims. View "GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses. Defendant's appeal from his convictions was pending in the appeals court, where he was represented by counsel. Acting pro se, Defendant filed a motion in the appeals court, which responded that it would consider only filings submitted by counsel of record. Defendant filed a petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, seeking relief from that ruling and a stay of his appeal until he was allowed to proceed without counsel. A single justice of the Supreme Court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court was not obligated to permit Defendant to proceed in a hybrid manner with representation in part by counsel and in part by himself. View "LeBaron v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law