Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner’s petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 for relief from a judgment entered in a small claims matter in the district court, holding that extraordinary relief was not warranted in this case.In the small claims matter a clerk-magistrate issued judgment in favor of Barclays Bank of Delaware as to both of Petitioner’s claims and Barclay’s counterclaims. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s claim of appeal. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but a judge denied the motion. In his petition in the county court Petitioner sought relief from the judge’s denial of relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner waived his right to appeal and likewise was not entitled to invoke this Court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence in lieu of an appeal that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief when he failed to request a transfer to the regular civil docket pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, 24. View "Mullane v. Barclays Bank Delaware" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner, an inmate convicted of murder in the first degree, filed this petition asking the court to compel a judge in the trial court to act on then-pending motions for postconviction relief. Thereafter, the trial judge acted on and denied the postconviction motions. The Supreme Judicial Court held that because the trial court judge had acted on Petitioner’s postconviction motions, his request for relief was moot. View "Tyree v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, 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 the defendant in a small claims matter. Petitioner did not request that the matter be transferred to the regular civil docket. A magistrate found for the plaintiff. A judge in the district court also found for the plaintiff. Petitioner did not request that the judge report any questions to the Appellate Division, but instead, filed this petition seeking review of the judge’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the single justice’s denial of relief, holding that Petitioner had no right to obtain review under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Aronova v. Mohamed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Appellant’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.Appellant was the plaintiff in two actions against the same defendant in the small claims session of the district court. The clerk-magistrate offered to consolidate the two cases and transfer the to the regular civil docket. Appellant, however, voluntarily dismissed one action and proceeded solely on the other. Appellant prevailed in the surviving action. Thereafter, Appellant filed motions seeking reconsideration in both cases and then filed this petition. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was no entitled to invoke this Court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence under the circumstances. View "Taylor-Cameron v. Walcott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Plaintiff’s petitions seeking relief from a summary process judgment and other orders entered against her in the housing court, holding that the single justice properly found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff’s filings made it clear that she had avenues available to her to pursue relief from the housing court orders and judgment other than by means of the petitions that she filed in this Court, and therefore, the single justice did not err in denying relief. View "Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.This dispute between Petitioner and Respondent involving certain work that Respondent performed on a construction site started as a small claims action in the district court. The clerk-magistrate, and later a jury, found in favor of Respondent. After filing a notice of appeal Petitioner filed its petition alleging that it had no remedy other than to seek relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The single justice summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate, well-established alternative remedy. View "D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. Machado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s petition for relief in the nature of mandamus, holding that Appellant did not demonstrate any entitlement to relief in the nature of mandamus.In his mandamus petition, Appellant sought an order directing the Appeals Court to recall the rescript it issued after affirming a final judgment of the superior court. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s petition, holding that Appellant was not barred from pursuing the ordinary process by applying for further appellate review. View "Myrick v. Appeals Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the trial judge allowing Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding (1) Massachusetts courts have personal jurisdiction over nonresident individuals who are served with process while intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily in Massachusetts; and (2) Defendants in this case were served under these circumstances.Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, sued Defendants, New Hampshire residents, in superior court. Plaintiff alleged negligence arising out of an incident that occurred in Florida. Defendants with served with in-hand process in Worcester. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The superior court allowed the motion, concluding that personal service in Massachusetts does not confer jurisdiction on the court. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that personal jurisdiction over Defendants comported with both State law and due process because Defendants were served while intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily in Massachusetts. View "Roch v. Mollica" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed 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 where Petitioner had the opportunity to obtain review of an adverse judgment in an appeal, the single justice did not commit a clear error of law or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was divorced from Respondent pursuant to a judgment of divorce nisi. Thereafter, Respondent filed a complaint for modification of child support followed by a motion to set aside the property settlement in the divorce judgment. A judge allowed both requests for relief. Petitioner later sought extraordinary relief, which the single justice denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of alternative means of redress. View "Aktas v. Aktas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held a party in a civil case has no right to an immediate appeal from a discovery order under the doctrine of present execution but nevertheless retains two other avenues to seek immediate appellate review of an interlocutory order.Plaintiffs brought a civil action against Defendants. During discovery, Plaintiffs sought certain information. The motion judge found that, contrary to Defendants’ claims, the information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants filed a notice of appeal seeking review under the doctrine of present execution and also brought a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 118 seeking interlocutory relief. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) orders requiring the disclosure of privileged material, such as the order in this case, are not appealable under the doctrine of present execution; and (2) although this appeal was not properly before the Court under the doctrine of present execution, the Court exercised its discretion under its superintendence authority to reach the merits and held that it must remand the matter to the motion judge for further factual findings. View "Patel v. Martin" on Justia Law