Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Stefanidises divided a parcel into Lot A and Lot B. The Stefanidses converted the building on Lot A into three condominium units and applied for a variance to built a two-family house on Lot B. The variance was approved, but the Stefanidses failed to record the variance. Pursuant to a subsequently granted building permit, the Stefanidses began to clear and prepare the site. More than one year after the variance was granted, Plaintiff, who lived in one of the units on Lot A, requested that the building commission revoke the building permit on the ground that the Stefanidses failed to record the variance within one year. The commissioner denied the request, and the zoning board of appeals upheld the commissioner's denial. The land court affirmed, determining that the variance had not lapsed because the Stefanidses had taken substantial steps in reliance upon it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on the facts of this case, the variance had become effective and had not lapsed. View "Grady v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Peabody" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of a child with force and indecent assault and battery of a child under fourteen. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the superior court judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his apartment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances, the police possessed sufficient factual information when they determined that a person who appeared to have authority had given consent to enter Defendant's apartment, and therefore, Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the warrantless entry into the home; and (2) there was no merit to Defendant's other claims of error. View "Commonwealth v. Santos" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in suppressing Defendant's statements he made to police after he was arrested but before he received the Miranda warnings, as Defendant's statements were voluntary and not made as a result of any police prompting or coercion; (2) the remarks made by the prosecutor during his closing argument were either not improper or no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the remarks; and (3) the trial court's jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and use of excessive force in self-defense were in error, but under the circumstances, there was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice arising from the errors. View "Commonwealth v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs' employment with the Department of Correction was terminated due to allegations that Plaintiffs used excessive force against an inmate. Plaintiffs appealed the termination order to the Civil Service Commission. After a single commissioner held a hearing, the Commission voted three-to-two in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered they be reinstated. The superior court reversed and remanded to the Commission with instructions that the single commissioner who conducted the hearing no longer participate in the case. After a hearing before the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) magistrate, the magistrate recommended that the Commission affirm the Department's decision to terminate Plaintiffs' employment. Only four of the five members of the Commission voted on the magistrate's recommendation, and the vote resulted in a two-to-two tie. The Commission consequently dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal. The superior court judge also concluded the tie vote effectively dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal and upheld the Department's termination order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where a hearing officer recommends affirmance of the decision of an appointing authority and the Commission proceedings result in a tie vote, the initial decision of the hearing officer becomes the final decision of the Commission. View "McGuiness v. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of various sexual offenses and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Prior to Defendant's scheduled release, the Commonwealth sought to commit Defendant as a sexually dangerous person. Defendant was temporarily committed and stipulated to probable cause. The Commonwealth subsequently filed a timely petition for trial. Defendant moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that the trial had not commenced within sixty days. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled as a matter of right to interlocutory relief because he had an adequate alternative remedy by way of an appeal. View "Flood v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant filed this action against the Massachusetts Trial Court, alleging that it violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B by not selecting Defendant for two different promotions based on her age. A jury found in Defendant's favor with respect to one of the two positions. The trial judge then denied Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted its motion for a new trial. Both parties appealed. The appeals court reversed the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and vacated the order allowing the motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the superior court, holding that because the judge granted the motion for a new trial, the appeal was premature, and the case should not have proceeded to an appellate court. View "Zaniboni v. Mass. Trial Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along with franchisees from other states, filed a putative class action in the U.S. district court against Defendant, the Massachusetts corporation that franchised Plaintiff's business, alleging that Defendant misclassified him as an independent contractor and committed various wage law violations. The district court certified several questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150 by filing a complaint with the attorney general does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148, 148B, 150, and 151(1) and (1a); (2) a franchisor is vicariously liable for the conduct of its franchisee only where the franchisor controls or has a right to control the specific policy or practice resulting in harm to the franchisee; and (3) a defendant may be liable for employee misclassification where there was no contract for service between the plaintiff and the defendant. View "Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant and Joseph Morgan were tried separately for the crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial judge (1) properly admitted the victim's statements to the 911 operator because the statements were excited utterances and were nontestimonial insofar as they were solicited for the primary purpose of enabling the police to assist in an ongoing emergency; (2) properly admitted the victim's statements to a responding police officer as dying declarations, concluding that the statements were not subject to the constraints of the confrontation clause; (3) did not err in declining to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude the Commonwealth from arguing that the victim's intoxication did not affect his ability to identify Defendant as one of the shooters where the Commonwealth had previously argued at Morgan's trial that the victim's identification of Morgan had been unreliable because the positions taken by the Commonwealth at the two trials with respect to the reliability of the victim's identifications were distinct and not mutually exclusive. View "Commonwealth v. Middlemiss" on Justia Law

Defendant was incited for murder in the first degree and various counts of masked armed robbery. Pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2), Defendant notified the Commonwealth that he intended to offer expert testimony concerning his mental state at the time of the alleged crime. The Commonwealth subsequently moved for a court-ordered psychiatric examination of Defendant, requesting disclosure of the custodians of Defendant's medical and psychiatric records and production and seeking the production of all such treatment records to the court. The motion judge denied the portion of the motion requesting disclosure of the custodians and production of Defendant's medical and psychiatric records. The Supreme Court reversed the motion judge's order insofar as it denied the Commonwealth's motion for access to Defendant's medical and psychiatric records on behalf of the Rule 14(b)(2)(B) examiner, holding that the examiner's review of the treatment records was necessary to conduct a meaningful examination and to produce the requisite reports. View "Commonwealth v. Hanright" on Justia Law

This appeal was the last chapter in a case with a "long and tortuous procedural history." The sheriff of Suffolk County brought this appeal after Plaintiff, a jail officer employed by the sheriff, filed an action to enforce an arbitrator's award of back pay to Plaintiff after a finding that Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged. The sheriff appealed from the superior court ruling that Plaintiff had no duty to mitigate his damages by seeking comparable employment. The union for the jail officers and employees of the county, on behalf of Plaintiff, cross appealed from the judge's decision not to assess statutory postjudgment interest on the arbitrator's award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff had a duty to mitigate his damages, but the sheriff waived this issue by failing to raise it earlier in the proceedings; and (2) the superior court judge did not err in deciding not to assess postjudgment interest on sovereign immunity grounds. View "Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Jail Officers & Employees of Suffolk County" on Justia Law