Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1993, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. After unsuccessfully filing numerous postconviction petitions, Defendant filed in the county court a petition in the nature of mandamus pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 5. A single justice denied the petition, concluding that mandamus relief was not appropriate because Defendant had another adequate remedy. Defendant filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, regardless of whether the Court considered the petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 5 or Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, Defendant was not entitled to relief. View "Vinnie v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Petitioner was the defendant in a summary process action in the Housing Court. In 1993, the Appeals Court affirmed. In the years since then, Petitioner repeatedly sought to challenge the foreclosure that led to the summary process action, without success. In 2015, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to vacate the Appeals Court’s 1993 decision. The Appeals Court denied relief. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 in the county court. A single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner failed to prosecute her appeal, and therefore, her appeal could be dismissed on this basis alone; and (2) Petitioner’s claims failed on the merits. View "Eresian v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and armed robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. This appeal concerned Defendant’s second motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The superior court judge allowed the motion for a new trial, ruling that the newly discovered evidence was material, credible, and would have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberations such that this was a case where justice had not been done. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the motion judge did not abuse her discretion in ruling that the newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Ellis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant appealed his conviction and also sought relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E asking that his sentence be revised. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in not allowing the admission of testimony by an expert on eyewitness identification or in allowing the admission of testimony concerning a stocking cap that was seized from a vehicle Defendant was driving several months after the shooting; and (2) there was no reason to exercise the Court’s authority to grant extraordinary relief, but because Defendant’s pending motion to revise and revoke his sentence was timely filed but has not been acted upon, the matter is remanded to the superior court for consideration of the motion. View "Commonwealth v. Snyder" on Justia Law

After a second trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of murder in the first degree. Defendant later filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of new DNA evidence. The motion judge denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant filed a gatekeeper petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, and was granted leave to appeal the denial of the motion to the full court. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order denying the motion and remanded for further findings. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the motion judge again denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and a petition in the county court to reinstate his appeal in the full court. A single justice treated Defendant’s petition to reinstate his appeal as a second gatekeeper petition and denied the petition. Defendant then filed a motion in the full court to reinstate his appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) the reinstatement of Defendant’s appeal was appropriate; and (2) the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. DiBenedetto" on Justia Law

Limoliner Inc., which owned and operated a fleet of luxury motor coaches, hired Dattco, Inc. to perform repair work on one of those vehicles. While Dattco recorded most of those requests in writing, Dattco neglected to write down Limoliner’s verbal request to repair one of the vehicle’s important electrical components. When Dattco failed to make any repairs to that component, Limoliner commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that Dattco violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 2(a), as interpreted by 940 Code Mass. Regs. 5.05(2), by failing to record Limoliner’s request in writing. Dattco removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Following a jury-waived trial, a magistrate judge found for Dattco on Limoliner’s regulatory claim under 940 Code Mass. Regs. 5.05, concluding that the provision at issue applies only to consumer transactions and not to transactions where the customer is another business. Limoliner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified a question regarding the issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that 940 Code Mass. Regs. 5.05 does apply to transactions in which the customer is a business entity. View "Limoliner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as a joint venturer of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The conviction was based on evidence that Defendant had been the driver of the vehicle that dropped off at an intersection four people who shot the victim. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying her motion for a required finding of not guilty. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been granted because the evidence was insufficient to allow a jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle or that she was in some way involved in the shooting. View "Commonwealth v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Judicial Court recognized the “continuing treatment doctrine” under Massachusetts law, which provides that a medical malpractice cause of action does not accrue while a patient is continuing to receive treatment for the same or related condition from the same physician who allegedly caused the patient harm. Here Plaintiffs, on behalf of their minor son, brought a medical malpractice action against Defendant-physician for his alleged negligence in connection with a “radio frequency ablation” procedure he performed on their son that eventually resulted in the amputation of the child’s leg. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant, finding that the action was barred by the relevant statute of limitations because Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known that their son had been harmed by the Defendant’s conduct more than three years before Plaintiffs filed the action. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted the continuing treatment exception to the discovery rule and then affirmed, holding that, because Defendant’s participation in treating the child ended more than three years before the suit was filed, the cause of action was not timely under the statute of limitations. View "Parr v. Rosenthal" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity and cruelty. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree and his sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not commit any errors that would warrant a new trial; but (2) under the circumstances of this case, a reduction of Defendant’s conviction from murder in the first degree to voluntary manslaughter was more consonant with justice. Remanded for the entry of a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter and for imposition of sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The City of Springfield filed suit against the City of Papillion, and Sarpy County, seeking to enjoin Papillion from annexing land which had been indicated as Springfield’s area of future growth in a map adopted by the County in 1995. The district court for Sarpy County found that Springfield lacked standing; Springfield appealed. After review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that Springfield asserted an infringement of its statutory governmental functions and rights under the County Industrial Sewer Construction Act. That infringement was sufficient to grant standing. The Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Massachusetts v. Herndon" on Justia Law