The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Plaintiff's requests for declaratory relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231A, 1, holding that the single justice properly denied relief.In his petition for declaratory relief Plaintiff requested to have the judge removed from his criminal matter and sought a general declaration that the judge should not sit on any criminal matters in Bristol County. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because Plaintiff pleaded guilty, disposing of the criminal charge, Plaintiff's request to have the judge removed from his criminal matter was moot; and (2) Plaintiff had no right as a matter of law to seek an order compelling a judge's recusal from any case other than his own. View "Murphy v. Superior Court" 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, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of larceny over $250. Petitioner's appeal was ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution. Petitioner later filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking an order dismissing the underlying criminal charges on the grounds that his appeal was deliberately blocked by the appeals court and others. A single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Kyricopoulos v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that possession of an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle is a civil motor vehicle infraction rather than a criminal offense, thus overruling Commonwealth v. Giannino, 371 Mass. 700 (1977), in which the Court held that automobile law violations must encompass the "operation or control" of a motor vehicle.Defendant was charged with possessing open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, 20, and other offenses. Defendant argued that the open container charged constituted a civil infraction, rather than a criminal offense. The trial court disagreed, concluding that it was a criminal offense. A jury found Defendant guilty. At issue was whether an open container violation fits within the definition of a "civil motor vehicle infraction," which is defined as an automobile law violation for which the maximum penalty does not provide for imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed after analyzing the legislative history and plain language of the open container statute, holding that a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, 24I is an automobile law violation and thus a civil motor vehicle infraction. View "Commonwealth v. Mansur" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice denying Defendant's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition for bail review, holding that because the bail determinations were properly made and no violation of Defendant's rights occurred, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying Defendant's petition seeking review of the bail determination.Defendant's first trial for murder in the first degree and ended in a mistrial. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, but the motion was denied. A single justice denied Defendant's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking review of that ruling, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. While Defendant's appeal was pending, bail was set in the cash amount of $250,000. After Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion for bail review he filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 for bail review. A single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying the petition. View "Pinney v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree, aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and armed assault in a dwelling house, holding that there was no Brady violation and that the superior court judge did not err in denying Defendant's second motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing on the matter.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that newly discovered evidence of later contradictory testimony by the Commonwealth's key witness proved that the prosecution failed to disclose a plea agreement at the time of trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed and declined to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce or set aside the verdict on the murder conviction, holding (1) the judge did not err in finding that Defendant's evidence of a Brady violation did not create a substantial issue warranting an evidentiary hearing; (2) the judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that there was no undisclosed plea deal that would require granting Defendant's second motion for a new trial; and (3) the verdict of murder in the first degree is consonant with justice. View "Commonwealth v. Upton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the appeals court affirming the decision and decree of the juvenile court judge terminating Mother's parental rights to Luc, holding that there was sufficient proof to support he judge's decree and decision.On appeal, Mother argued that the judge improperly admitted into evidence a Department of Child and Families social worker's reports and dictation notes, as well as inadmissible hearsay and improper opinion evidence contained therein. Mother also argued that the juvenile court judge's findings of fact were insufficient to establish Mother's unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even without the challenged evidence, there was enough proof supporting the judge's decree and decision terminating Mother's parental rights to Luc. View "In re Adoption of Luc" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the jury's verdict awarding Plaintiff damages after finding that Defendants violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148, 148A & 150 (the Wage Act) but vacated portions of the trial judge's final judgment, holding that the judge erred in his determination of the portion of the award subject to trebling under the Wage Act.Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, argued that Defendants failed to pay her the full amount of a commission that she had earned and by terminating her when she complained about it, resulting in her losing an additional commission. The jury found that Defendants violated the Wage Act and awarded Plaintiff damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, and therefore, the trial court properly denied Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; but (2) the full amount of the commission that would have been due to Plaintiff had she not been terminated is a "lost wage" that must be trebled pursuant to the Wage Act. View "Parker v. EnerNOC, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Appellant's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, in which Appellant sought review of certain rulings in a personal injury action, holding that because of serious deficiencies in Appellant's petition, the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint in the personal injury action, and Appellant's appeal was also dismissed. Two subsequent attempts to appeal were also dismissed. Appellant then brought this action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 asserting, without any supporting documents or other substantiation, that the district court judge acted improperly. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly denied extraordinary relief due to significant deficiencies in Appellant's petition. View "Wilson v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Appellant's petition for extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, in which Appellant sought relief from a judgment entered in a small claims case in the municipal court, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying relief.In the small claims case, Appellant alleged that two corporations violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The clerk-magistrate entered judgment for Defendants, concluding that Appellant had not proved that they were responsible for the damages he claimed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's argument that the clerk-magistrate should have made detailed findings was unavailing because nothing in the statutes or rules governing small claims procedures required the clerk-magistrate to do so. View "Prince v. Obelisk, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case involving a final judgment entered against a professional corporation for the fraudulent activity of one of its associates, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, in the unique circumstances of this case, Plaintiff, who was defrauded by the associate, may pursue successor liability against the sole proprietorship of Defendant, the sole shareholder and officer of the professional corporation.Plaintiff was defrauded by the corporation's associate in a mortgage scam. Defendant was the sole shareholder and officer of the corporation, RKelley-Law, P.C. (the P.C.). After the entry of final judgment against the P.C. Defendant voted to wind up the corporation and, that same day, began operating his law practice as a sole proprietorship. Thereafter, the P.C. was placed into bankruptcy proceedings. Because the P.C. had no assets, Plaintiff sought to recover from Defendant personally. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that the doctrine of successor liability could not be applied where the successor in interest was a natural person rather than a corporate entity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that because Defendant's sole proprietorship was a mere continuation of the former professional corporation Plaintiff may pursue successor liability against the proprietorship. View "Smith v. Kelley" on Justia Law