Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant owned and managed a nature preserve on Martha’s Vineyard compromised of parcels of land owned by Defendant. In 2010, Defendant created a hiking trail through the preserve that crossed over Plaintiffs’ property via an easement. The trail proceeded across three parcels of Defendant’s land for whose benefit the easement was created and then entered a fourth parcel owned by Defendant that was not intended to benefit from the easement. Plaintiffs filed an action to prevent Defendant from using the easement as part of the hiking trial, arguing that the bright-line rule in Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc. disallows any use of an easement to benefit land to which the easement is not appurtenant. On that basis, a land court judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant appealed, arguing that the bright-line rule in Murphy is overly rigid and suggested, instead, that the Court adopt a fact-intensive inquiry considering whether the use of an easement to benefit other parcels would increase unfairly the burden on the easement. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed and thus declined to adopt Defendant’s suggestion, holding that the benefits of preserving the bright-line rule set forth in Murphy outweigh any costs associated with its rigidity. View "Taylor v. Martha's Vineyard Land Bank Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her employer for sex discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 9. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff on her retaliation claim and awarded her both compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant was additionally ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs. The judgment did not provide for postjudgment interest on punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that her request for postjudgment interest should have been granted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge correctly denied Plaintiff’s request for postjudgment interest on the award of punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees because Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 9 does not contain language that necessarily implies that the Commonwealth should be liable for such postjudgment interest. View "Brown v. Office of Comm’r of Probation" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial due to errors in Defendant’s first trial. On remand, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree by extreme atrocity or cruelty and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) the Commonwealth made improper statements during closing arguments, but this error did not warrant a new trial or other relief; (2) Defendant’s remaining allegations of error were unavailing; and (3) the Court discerns no basis to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Durand" on Justia Law

This interlocutory review arose out of a discovery dispute in an action brought by Plaintiff, a union member, alleging claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against Defendants. Plaintiff objected to certain discovery requests on the part of Defendants, asserting a union member-union privilege. The judge rejected Plaintiff’s claim and entered an order compelling production of the discovery. At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Judicial Court should interpret Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E as implying a union member-union privilege even where no such privilege has been recognized in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order below, holding (1) there is no legislative intent to incorporate within Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E a union member-union privilege extending beyond the labor dispute setting; and (2) the Court declines to recognize the privilege under common law. View "Chadwick v. Duxbury Public Schools" on Justia Law

Karen Partanen and Julie Gallagher were in a committed, nonmarital relationship for twelve years. Using in vitro fertilization and with Partanen’s full participation and consent, Gallagher fave birth the two children. The parties jointly raised the children until their separation. Partanen subsequently filed this action to establish full legal parentage pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209C, 6(a)(4). Gallagher filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. A judge of the probate and family court allowed the motion, concluding that Partanen could not be deemed a presumed parent under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209C, 6(a)(4) because she was not the children’s biological parent. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) a person may establish herself as a child’s presumptive parent under the statute in the absence of a biological relationship with the child; and (2) the assertions in Partanen’s complaint were sufficient to state a claim of parentage under the statute. Remanded. View "Partanen v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Prior to his scheduled release, the Commonwealth filed a petition to commit James Green as a sexually dangerous predator (SDP). Green was found sexually dangerous after a jury trial. Two months later, Green filed a petition for discharge pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, 9. After a trial, the jury returned their verdict that Green was not an SDP. The Commonwealth filed a motion for a new trial, challenging the trial judge’s instruction that in order to find Green sexually dangerous the jury must credit the expert opinion testimony of the qualified examiner. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a finding of sexual dangerousness must be based at least in part on credible qualified examiner opinion testimony; and (2) therefore, there was no error in the judge’s instruction that the jury must credit the qualified examiner’s opinion to reach a finding of sexual dangerousness. View "In re Green" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped for failing to stop at a stop sign. The officer concluded that Defendant was using the vehicle without authority and decided to impound the vehicle. During an inventory search in preparation for impoundment, the officer seized a handgun and box of ammunition from the vehicle. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the handgun, the ammunition, and statements he made to police. The municipal court allowed the motion to suppress. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order allowing the motion to suppress, holding (1) the police did not have probable cause to believe that Defendant was operating the vehicle he was driving in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, 24(2)(a), and therefore, the impoundment of the vehicle was not proper; and (2) therefore, the inventory search was not lawful, and the handgun and ammunition were properly suppressed. View "Commonwealth v. Campbell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, and of unlawful possession of a firearm for the shooting death of a fifteen year old boy. Defendant received the statutorily required sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his murder conviction. Defendant was eighteen years old at the shooting. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding from evidence a computer-generated simulation that was intended to assist the jury in determining the shooter’s height; (2) the remainder of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal were not in error; (3) the Commonwealth did not improperly invoke the jury’s sympathy during closing argument; (4) Defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutional; and (5) there was no basis on which to grant Defendant extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Chukwuezi" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree. A superior court judge allowed Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cellular telephone, concluding that the seizure of the telephone was not supported by probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause to search or seize a person’s cellular telephone may not be based solely on an officer’s opinion or belief that the device is likely to contain evidence of the crime under investigation; (2) because the officers in this case lacked any information establishing the existence of relevant evidence likely to be found on Defendant’s telephone, the seizure was not supported by probable cause; and (3) the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the sixty-eight-day-delay between the seizure and the application for a search warrant was reasonable. View "Commonwealth v. White" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment. The convictions were based on five letters that Defendant wrote and sent to Michael and Susan Costello after a local election in which Michael had been elected as a town selectman. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Defendant’s conviction of criminal harassment of Michael and vacated Defendant’s conviction of criminal harassment of Susan and remanded for a new trial on that count, holding (1) in light of First Amendment constitutional protections afforded to political speech and the lack of evidence of serious alarm of Michael’s part, the evidence was not sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction of criminal harassment of Michael; and (2) the speech on which the complaint of criminal harassment of Susan is premised might be found to qualify as fitting within a constitutionally unprotected category of speech that may be subject to prosecution as a form of criminal harassment. View "Commonwealth v. Bigelow" on Justia Law