Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court dismissing as moot Petitioner’s complaint for relief in the nature of mandamus, holding that where Petitioner received the specific relief sought in his complaint, the complaint was properly dismissed as moot.Petitioner pleaded guilty to various offenses. Petitioner later filed two motions seeking to withdraw those guilty pleas. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a complaint in the county court seeking an order direction the superior court to take action on his motions. While the complaint was pending, a superior court judge denied both motions. Accordingly, a single justice of the Court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the complaint was properly dismissed as moot. View "Stacy v. Superior Court Department" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioners’ petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that Petitioners demonstrated no error of law or abuse of discretion in the denial of extraordinary relief.Petitioners were defendants in a summary process action commenced by a bank. The bank was awarded possession of the property after a trial. The Appellate Division affirmed. Thereafter, an execution issued on the judgment for possession. After moving unsuccessfully to vacate the execution, Petitioners filed a motion to stay or strike the execution. The Appellate Division denied the motion. Petitioners then filed the instant Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. A single justice of the Court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners had, and to some extent pursued, an avenue for relief in the ordinary appellate process. View "Bishay v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioners’ petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied extraordinary relief.Petitioners were the defendants in a summary process action commenced in the district court by a bank. A judge found for the bank, and the Appellate Division affirmed. While their application for further appellate review was pending, Petitioners filed this Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking relief from the district court’s denial of their motion to amend their answer to assert new defenses and counterclaims and to request a jury trial. A single justice denied relief on the ground that Petitioners had, and were pursuing, an avenue of relief in the ordinary appellate process. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners’ claims could be and were raised in the ordinary appellate process. View "Costello v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp." 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 did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary relief.Petitioner, who charged with several motor vehicle offenses, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the police failed to file the citations in a timely manner. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner then filed this petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 of setting forth the reasons why relief could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means. View "Quigley 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 did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary relief.Petitioner was indicted for assault and battery and, several months later, witness intimidation. The Commonwealth filed a motion to prohibit the two attorneys in the two cases from engaging in duplicative trial procedures. A superior court judge allowed the motion in large part. Petitioner’s petition challenged that order. The single justice denied relief on the ground that Petitioner had an adequate remedy in the normal appellate process. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 of setting forth the reasons why relief could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means. View "Gonsalves 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 did not err or abuse her discretion in denying extraordinary relief.Petitioner was indicted on charges of manslaughter and assault and battery. After a superior court denied Petitioner’s motion to produce a transcript of the instructions given to the grand jury, Petitioner filed this Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The single justice denied relief on the ground that Petitioner had an adequate remedy in the normal appellate process. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 of setting forth the reasons why relief could not be adequately obtained on appeal or by other available means. View "Robin 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, in which Petitioner sought the dissolution of a memorandum of lis pendens, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary relief.Petitioner was a defendant in an action in the superior court concerning certain real property. On the motion of the plaintiff, a judge endorsed the memorandum of lis pendens at issue in this case. Petitioner appealed from a judgment enforcing the parties’ agreement to settle the case, challenging the enforcement of the settlement agreements, as well as the endorsement of the memorandum of lis pendens. Before the Appeals Court affirmed, Petitioner filed this Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the single justice properly denied extraordinary relief because the case in the superior court had not yet gone to final judgment. View "Saade v. Price" 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 did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child and indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen years of age. Petitioner later filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition alleging that the trial court ignored his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence that he claimed to have previously filed. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because it was unclear from the record whether the motion was actually ever received by and filed in the trial court Petitioner was not entitled to relief. View "Santos v. Commonwealth" 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 did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.In his petition, Petitioner sought relief from an original divorce judgment as well as a modification to that judgment. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) to the extent that Petitioner continued to seek a stay to prevent his former wife’s trip to India with the parties’ children, the issue was now moot; and (2) to the extent Petitioner sought to preclude any and all future travel by seeking relief from the divorce judgment and the ensuing modification, Petitioner’s remedy did not lie with this Court. View "Panda v. Panda" 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 did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.In 1974, Petitioner was convicted of several crimes in two different cases. In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial in each of the two cases. The trial court denied the motions, and the Appeals Court affirmed. Petitioner then filed this petition raising the same issues that he had raised in the Appeals Court. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to review under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "McCants v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law