Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Trenea Figgs was a participant in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program, which was administered by the Boston Housing Authority. After the discovery by police officers of marijuana and a loaded firearm in Figgs’s apartment, the BHA notified Figgs of its intent to terminate her participation in the Section 8 program due to violations of her lease. A hearing officer concluded that termination of Figgs’s Section 8 housing subsidy was proper in light of her serious lease violation. The Housing Court reversed and ordered the BHA to reinstate Figgs’s Section 8 housing subsidy. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the Housing Court, holding that, notwithstanding the enactment of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32L, which decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, the hearing officer properly concluded that Figgs violated her lease based on evidence of other criminal activity in Figgs’s rental premises, and the violation warranted Figgs’s termination from the Section 8 program. View "Figgs v. Boston Housing Auth." on Justia Law

Soon after beginning work for the City of Springfield, Joseph McDowell achieved the status of a permanent, tenured civil service employee. McDowell was later provisionally promoted. McDowell worked in the second of his provisional positions for several years until the City terminated his employment. While McDowell’s appeal from his termination was pending before the Civil Service Commission, McDowell pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns. The Commission concluded (1) McDowell was entitled to appeal his termination pursuant to the relevant provisions of the civil service statute; and (2) the City was entitled to suspend McDowell upon his indictment and thereafter entitled to discharge him upon his conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded, holding (1) McDowell, who held a tenured civil service position but then accepted a provisional promotion, was entitled to appeal his termination to the Commission; and (2) under the particular circumstances of this case, the Commission was permitted to take the criminal proceeding against McDowell and its disposition into account, but McDowell’s indictment for filing false tax returns did not qualify as an indictment for misconduct in his employment within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, 25, and thus a suspension based on the indictment would not have been valid. View "City of Springfield v. Civil Serv. Comm’n" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Energy Facilities Siting Board approved the petition of Brockton Power Company, LLC to build and operate a combined-cycle energy generating facility powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate in the City of Brockton. The City, the Town of West Bridgewater, and a group of residents of the City and Town, all intervenors in the proceedings below, filed appeals of the decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Board, holding (1) the Intervenors’ contention that the Board’s failure to apply unspecified “substantive equal protection” principles to its review of the proposed facility was without merit, as there was no requirement in the 2002 environmental justice policy to do so; (2) the Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter; (3) the Board did not erroneously accept Logan Airport weather data as representative of the proposed facility site; (4) the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that Brockton Power’s evidence regarding the facility’s impact on the Town’s water supply was accurate and complete; and (5) the Board did not improperly designate delivery routes to and from the facility. View "City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd." on Justia Law

In 2009, the Energy Facilities Siting Board approved the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC to build and operate a combined-cycle energy generating facility powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate in the City of Brockton. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Board’s decision. In 2009, while the consolidated appeal was pending, Brockton Power submitted a project change filing (PCF) to the Board seeking approval of three changes to its project. The Board denied one of Brockton Power’s proposed changes but approved the two other project changes. Both Brockton Power and the City appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Board’s PCF decision in all respects, holding (1) the procedure the Board adopted to review potentially material changes to Brockton Power’s project did not constitute an abuse of its discretion; (2) the Board’s approval of Brockton Power’s proposed use of water from the City’s advanced wastewater reclamation facility for the facility’s cooling tower was not invalid; and (3) the Board did not err by concluding that the CO emissions from a gas-only plant satisfied statutory standards. View "Brockton Power Co. LLC v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd." on Justia Law

The Sex Offender Registry Board notified Petitioner that it had preliminarily classified him as a level three sex offender. Petitioner requested a hearing. After the hearing had been completed but before the hearing examiner had rendered a decision, a successor examiner was appointed. The successor examiner then issued his decision classifying Petitioner as a level three offender. The superior court affirmed the Board’s decision. Petitioner sought an order directing the Board to produce a transcript of his classification hearing under 803 Code Mass. Regs. 4.22(4), which directs the Board to provide a successor hearing examiner and the parties with a copy of the transcript where the successor examiner is appointed after the presentation of evidence is complete and the record closed. Despite this requirement, no copy of the classification transcript was ever provided to Petitioner. Petitioner’s request was denied. Petitioner then filed a mandamus petition in the county court seeking to compel the Board to provide a copy of the hearing transcript. A single justice denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the single justice and remanded the case to the county court where an order shall enter directing the Board to produce a copy of the transcript. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd." on Justia Law

A Massachusetts regulation requires that each “entrance” to a public building or facility be accessible persons with disabilities. J.M. Hollister, LLC (Hollister) operated a retail store in Kingston with three doorways. At issue in this case was whether the three doorways constituted separate entrances or a single integrated entrance. Hollister applied for a variance from its obligation to make all public entrances to the store handicapped accessible. The board ultimately denied the variance and ordered Hollister to bring the store into compliance. The superior court affirmed the board’s decision that the doorways constituted separate entrances and found that there was substantial evidence to support the denial of a variance. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the board reasonably could conclude from the evidence that the three doorways were not integrated but rather constituted separate access points into the store in both form and function; and (2) the board’s denial of the variance was based on substantial evidence. View "J.M. Hollister, LLC v. Architectural Access Bd." on Justia Law

Patricia Campatelli, the Register of Probate and Insolvency for Suffolk County, was suspended with pay pending further investigation of allegations of inappropriate conduct and mismanagement in the performance of her duties. Campatelli filed a complaint in the county court seeking a judgment declaring that the three court officials who placed her on administrative leave did not possess the authority to suspend her pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 4. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, and the Court Administrator possessed the authority to suspend Campatelli with pay. View "Campatelli v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the town of Hanover, filed suit against Defendant, the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, alleging that Defendant engaged in abuse of process in prior legal proceedings by maintaining the litigation, providing legal counsel, and controlling the plaintiffs’ interests, despite not being named a plaintiff in the suit. Defendant filed a special motion to dismiss pursuant to the “anti-SLAPP” statute, asserting that the town’s claims against it were solely based on Defendant’s constitutionally protected right to petition. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that Defendant did not have standing to bring its motion under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant showed that the suit against it was based on protected petitioning activity; (2) the town did not meet its burden of showing that Defendant’s exercise of its right to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law; and (3) therefore, Defendant’s special motion to dismiss should be allowed. View "Town of Hanover v. New England Reg'l Council of Carpenters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of two adjacent unimproved lots in the town of Scituate. The lots were located in a flood plain and watershed protection district (FPWP district). Plaintiff applied for special permits from the Town’s planning board to construct residential dwellings on the lots. The Board denied the applications, concluding that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that her lots were not “subject to flooding” within the meaning of the applicable zoning bylaw. A land court judge affirmed the Board’s decision. The appeals court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the appeals court adopted an incorrect definition of the phrase “subject to flooding,” and the land court judge adopted the correct meaning of the phrase. View "Doherty v. Planning Bd. of Scituate" on Justia Law

Petitioners owned thirty-six acres of land in Hampden. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Division), a unit of the Department of Environmental Protection, restricted Petitioners’ ability to construct a home on their land by delineating the property as a “priority habitat” for the eastern box turtle, a “species of special concern” under 321 Mass. Code Regs. 10.90. Petitioners challenged the validity of the priority habitat regulations insofar as they allowed the Division to designate priority habitat without affording landowners the procedural protections due under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to those owning property within significant habitats. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of the Division, concluding that the regulations did not exceed the scope of the Division’s authority as granted by MESA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the priority habitat regulations were a reasonable implementation of the enabling statute. View "Pepin v. Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law