Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Braintree tobacco compliance officer observed an open container of Jazz brand "Black & Mild" cigars on display behind the cash register of a convenience store. The Board of Health of Braintree found that the store violated state and local tobacco laws by offering a flavored tobacco product for sale and imposed a $1,000 fine. The store argued that it did not intend to sell the product and that its point-of-sale system would have prevented the sale. The store also contended that the board acted outside its authority in imposing the fine and that the proceedings were procedurally defective.The Superior Court reviewed the case and upheld the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion that the store offered the cigars for sale. The court also determined that the board had the authority to impose the fine administratively and that no procedural irregularities fatally marred the board's actions. The store appealed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that the store's placement and display of the cigars supported the board's finding that the product was being offered for sale. The court also concluded that the legislative and regulatory scheme governing the sale of tobacco products in Massachusetts permits local boards of health to enforce the regulations and impose mandatory penalties. The court found no procedural deficiencies that would invalidate the board's actions. View "Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Board of Health of Braintree" on Justia Law

The case involves the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act, which mandates that cities and towns with local access to MBTA services adopt zoning laws to provide at least one district of multifamily housing "as of right" near their MBTA facilities. The town of Milton, which has four MBTA stations, voted down a proposed zoning scheme to comply with the act. The Attorney General then sued the town to enforce the act.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk reviewed the case. The town initially took steps to comply with the act, including hiring a consultant and submitting an action plan to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC). However, a town-wide referendum ultimately rejected the proposed zoning bylaw. The Attorney General filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the act.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the MBTA Communities Act is constitutional and that the Attorney General has the authority to enforce it. However, the court found that the HLC did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when promulgating the guidelines, rendering them ineffective. The court granted declaratory relief in part and dismissed the remaining claims, directing the single justice to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion. View "Attorney General v. Town of Milton" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a statutory provision requiring the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) to provide immediate temporary emergency shelter to families who appear to be eligible based on their statements and information already in the agency's possession. The plaintiffs, representing a class of individuals, argued that HLC's requirement for third-party verification of identity, familial relationship, and Massachusetts residency at the time of initial application for emergency assistance shelter was contrary to the statutory language.The Superior Court judge ruled that HLC could not require third-party verification of Massachusetts residency but could require verification of family status and identity, except for pregnant women. Both parties appealed this decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the plain language of the statutory provision did not permit HLC to require third-party verification at the time of initial application. The court emphasized that the statute mandates immediate provision of shelter based on the family's statements and information in HLC's possession, without delay. The court found that the requirement for third-party verification at the initial application stage would contradict the statute's intent to provide immediate temporary shelter to those in need.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment to the extent it allowed HLC to require third-party verifications before providing shelter under the immediate placement proviso. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Garcia v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities" on Justia Law

The case involves Susan Hartnett, a public employee who worked for the Commonwealth from 1978 to 1990 and then rejoined public service in 2002, working for the city of Boston. Upon her return, her salary more than doubled compared to her 1990 salary. Hartnett continued working until 2006 and deferred her retirement until 2016. Initially, her pension was calculated without applying the anti-spiking provision of the public employee pension statute, but after an audit, the Boston Retirement System (BRS) applied the provision, reducing her pension.Hartnett challenged the application of the anti-spiking provision. The Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) and the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) affirmed BRS's decision. Hartnett then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which ruled in her favor, concluding that the anti-spiking provision did not apply because the years 1990 and 2002 were not "two consecutive years" under the statute. The agencies appealed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the phrase "two consecutive years" in the anti-spiking provision refers to two back-to-back years without interruption. The court found that the plain meaning of "consecutive" means following one after another without interruption, and this interpretation is consistent with the statutory scheme. The court rejected the agencies' argument that "two consecutive years" should mean two creditable years of service without another intervening year of service. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in favor of Hartnett, ruling that the years 1990 and 2002 are not "two consecutive years" under the anti-spiking provision. View "Hartnett v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board" on Justia Law

The case involves a proposed electric substation in East Boston by NSTAR Electric Company, doing business as Eversource Energy. The Energy Facilities Siting Board (the board) granted a certificate of environmental impact and public interest to Eversource for the substation. The petitioners, Conservation Law Foundation and GreenRoots, Inc., challenged this decision, arguing that Eversource failed to show "undue delay" by two city agencies, and that the board did not properly consider environmental justice principles, among other issues.Previously, Eversource's petition to build the substation was approved by the board in 2017, with a project change approved in 2018. The petitioners intervened in the proceedings, and the board issued a decision in November 2022, granting the certificate. The petitioners then filed for judicial review in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and upheld the board's decision. The court found that the board's determination of "undue delay" by the city agencies was supported by substantial evidence. The court also concluded that the board properly considered environmental justice principles, including the equitable distribution of energy benefits and burdens. Additionally, the court found that the board's decision to issue the equivalent of a G. L. c. 91 tidelands license was lawful and supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's findings on the need for the substation, its compatibility with environmental protection, public health, and safety, and its alignment with the public interest. The decision of the board was affirmed. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. Energy Facilities Siting Board" on Justia Law

Two non-domiciliary companies, S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC, and S&H Independent Premium Brands West, LLC, import and distribute European alcoholic beverages in the United States. They hold certificates of compliance under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 18B, allowing them to sell alcoholic beverages to licensed wholesalers in Massachusetts. In 2019, an Austrian malt beverage producer, Stiegl Getränke & Service GmbH & Co. KG, terminated its distribution agreement with S&H without prior notice and entered into a new agreement with another distributor, Win-It-Too, Inc.S&H filed a petition with the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC), alleging that Stiegl violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 25E, which prohibits suppliers from refusing to sell to any licensed wholesaler without good cause. The ABCC dismissed the petition, stating that Section 25E protections apply only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. S&H then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which upheld the ABCC's decision, agreeing that Section 25E protections do not extend to Section 18B certificate holders.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the term "any licensed wholesaler" in Section 25E refers only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. The Court also concluded that this interpretation does not violate the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution, as Section 18B certificate holders and Section 18 licensed wholesalers serve different roles in the regulatory framework. Therefore, the ABCC's decision to dismiss S&H's petition was upheld. View "S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, alleged that she was sexually assaulted by court officer Jose Martinez while in custody at the Lawrence District Court in 2009 and 2014. Doe claimed that the Massachusetts Trial Court was negligent in failing to prevent these assaults. She reported the 2009 assaults to the New Hampshire Department of Corrections, but they did not inform the Trial Court. In 2014, after further assaults, she again reported to New Hampshire authorities, who then notified the Massachusetts State Police, leading to Martinez's arrest in 2015. Additionally, in 2013, another detainee accused Martinez of groping her, but an investigation by the Lawrence police and the Trial Court did not substantiate the claim.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trial Court, concluding that the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA) immunized the Trial Court from suit under the discretionary function exception. The judge also noted that the MTCA's public duty rule provided an alternative basis for summary judgment.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Trial Court's decisions regarding detainee safety policies and procedures involved discretionary functions protected by the MTCA. The court found that the Trial Court had discretion in implementing policies to ensure detainee safety and that these decisions were integral to policy-making and planning. The court also noted that the Trial Court's actions were not prescribed by any statute or regulation, including the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which did not mandate immediate compliance with its standards. Therefore, the Trial Court was immune from liability under the MTCA's discretionary function exception. View "Doe v. Massachusetts Trial Court" on Justia Law

This case involves five ballot initiative petitions related to the classification of "app-based drivers" (drivers) as employees of delivery network companies or transportation network companies (collectively, companies). The petitions aim to ensure that drivers are not classified as employees, thereby excluding them from the rights, privileges, and protections that Massachusetts General and Special Laws confer on employees. Three of the five petitions couple this deprivation with "minimum compensation, healthcare stipends, earned paid sick time, and occupational accident insurance." The other two do not.The plaintiffs, a group of registered voters, challenged the Attorney General's certification of the petitions and the fairness and conciseness of the summaries prepared by the Attorney General. They argued that the petitions do not meet the related subjects requirement of the Massachusetts Constitution, that one of the petitions inappropriately asks voters for an exemption from the entirety of Massachusetts law, and that the three long-form versions contain prohibited "sweeteners" that are misleadingly described. They also argued that the petitions are designed to confuse by using dense and technical language.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk found that all five petitions share a common purpose of defining and governing the relationship between drivers and companies, and thus meet the related subjects requirement. The court also found that the Attorney General's summaries of the petitions were fair and concise, as required by the Massachusetts Constitution. The court remanded the case to the county court for entry of a declaration that the Attorney General's certifications and summaries comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Constitution. However, the court retained jurisdiction to revisit its rulings and conclusions if the proponents seek to place more than one petition on the November ballot. View "El Koussa v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the certification of Initiative Petition 23-35, "An Act Giving Transportation Network Drivers the Option to Form a Union and Bargain Collectively" by the Attorney General. The plaintiffs argued that the petition should not have been certified as it does not meet the requirement of containing only related subjects. They contended that the provisions allowing transportation network drivers to organize and collectively bargain with transportation network companies are unrelated to its provisions subjecting the results of any collective bargaining to supervision, review, and approval by the Commonwealth's Secretary of Labor.The case was brought before the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the petition does not satisfy the related subjects requirement of art. 48, and an order enjoining the Secretary of the Commonwealth from placing the petition on the Statewide election ballot. The plaintiffs argued that the Secretary of Labor's role in the collective bargaining process is not part of the integrated scheme proposed by the petition.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument. The court concluded that the petition seeks to establish a multistep collective bargaining scheme in which the Secretary of Labor's role is an integrated component. Therefore, the subjects of the petition are related for purposes of art. 48. The court affirmed the Attorney General's certification of the petition. The court also noted that the Secretary of Labor's supervisory role is designed to anticipate and address a potential consequence of the collective bargaining process the petition seeks to create, specifically a legal challenge that the collective bargaining process would be preempted by Federal antitrust law. View "Craney v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of a married individual, Costa Tingos, for Medicaid long-term care benefits. Costa and his wife, Mary, had been married for over 50 years, but had kept their finances largely separate due to Costa's history of gambling and financial mismanagement. When Costa moved into a nursing home, he applied for Medicaid benefits. However, Mary refused to provide information about her income and assets, which was necessary to determine Costa's eligibility. Costa argued that Mary's refusal to cooperate should not affect his eligibility.The case was initially heard by the Massachusetts Medicaid program, MassHealth, which denied Costa's application. Costa appealed to the MassHealth board of hearings, which also denied his appeal. Costa then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which vacated the board's decision and remanded the case back to the board. After two more rounds of hearings and appeals, the Superior Court affirmed the board's decision to deny Costa's application.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The court held that the board's interpretation of the phrase "refuses to cooperate" in the relevant regulation was reasonable. The court found that Mary's refusal to disclose her financial information did not constitute a refusal to cooperate within the meaning of the regulation, given the couple's long history of cooperation in other aspects of their marriage. The court also rejected Costa's argument that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. View "Freiner v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law