Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Following a jury-waived trial, a superior court judge determined that Defendant was a sexually dangerous person and ordered him civilly committed. Defendant’s past sexual offenses included a noncontact offense and at least two noncontact offenses accompanied by a contact offense. In determining whether Defendant was a “menace,” the judge found that Defendant was likely to commit in the future not only noncontact offenses, but that there was a “significant possibility” that Defendant would commit future contact offenses. At the time of Defendant’s trial the Supreme Judicial Court had not yet decided Commonwealth v. Suave, in which the Court defined the term “menace." Therefore, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Suave. View "Commonwealth v. Walker" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was found to be a sexually dangerous person and ordered civilly committed. While the judge found that although Defendant was only likely to commit noncontact sexual offenses in the future, the judge concluded that the offenses would instill in Defendant's victims a “reasonable apprehension of being subjected to a contact sex crime,” and thus Defendant was a “menace” as defined in Commonwealth v. Suave. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant was a menace to the health and safety of others and a sexually dangerous person within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A; and (2) Defendant’s commitment as a sexually dangerous person did not violate his substantive due process rights. View "Commonwealth v. Fay" on Justia Law

Following a trial, a judge of the superior court civilly committed Defendant based on the judge’s finding that Defendant was a sexually dangerous person. The judge noted that Defendant’s sexual offenses were noncontact offenses but nevertheless concluded that Defendant was likely to engage in sexual offenses in the future to a degree that made him a “menace” to the health and safety of other persons. At the time of Defendant’s trial, the Supreme Judicial Court had not yet decided Commonwealth v. Suave, in which the Court held (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A permits a finding of sexual dangerous based on a defendant’s history of committing noncontact sexual offenses and his likelihood of committing only noncontact offenses in the future, and (2) to find that a defendant is a “menace,” the State must show the defendant’s predicted sexual offenses are likely to instill in his victims “a reasonable apprehension of being subjected to a contact sex crime.” In the instant case, because the judge did not make his findings within the Suave framework, the Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of Suave. View "Commonwealth v. Almeida" on Justia Law

When Mother’s child was one year old, Mother’s grandmother (Grandmother) sought to have herself appointed as the child’s guardian. After Mother purportedly consented to Grandmother’s appointment as the permanent guardian, the judge appointed Grandmother as the child’s permanent guardian. Mother filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), arguing that the judgment was void for lack of due process because she was not appointed counsel during the guardianship proceedings. The motion was denied. After Mother appealed the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion, Mother filed a petition in the county court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, alleging that she had a constitutional right to have counsel appointed for her in the underlying proceeding. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petition, concluding that Mother had an adequate alternative remedy through an appeal from the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Mother had an adequate alternative remedy, Mother failed to satisfy the basic threshold requirement for obtaining extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Gianareles v. Zegarowski" on Justia Law

When Muniur M. was fourteen years old, he was charged with delinquency by reason of rape of a child with force. Muniur later admitted to sufficient facts to warrant an adjudication of delinquency on the charge of statutory rape. The juvenile court judge adjudicated Muniur delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services but suspended the commitment and placed him on probation. Over eighteen years later, Muniur filed a motion to vacate his admission and for a new trial, alleging that his father forced him to admit to sufficient facts. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the district court judge allowed the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judge’s order and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the judge erred by not allowing evidence to be taken, and tested by cross-examination, on the substantial issue of the voluntariness of Muniur’s admission. View "Commonwealth v. Muniur M." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to several charges, including indecent assault and battery. As a condition of his probation, Defendant was required to register as a sex offender. Defendant was subsequently convicted of failing to register in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 6, 178H. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "Commonwealth v. Pike" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was found guilty of statutory rape. Defendant filed a motion for relief from the obligation to register as a sex offender. After a hearing, the judge (1) concluded that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178E(f) did not bar him from relieving Defendant of the obligation to register, and (2) relieved Defendant of the obligation of registering with the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judge’s order reliving Defendant of the obligation to register as a sex offender, holding that the plain language of section 178E(f) forbids a judge of relieving the defendant of the obligation to register with SORB when the defendant has been convicted of a sex offense involving a child. View "Commonwealth v. Dalton" on Justia Law

Selmark Associates, Inc. and Marathon Sales, Ltd. were closely held Massachusetts corporations that operated manufacturer’s representative companies. In 2001, Evan Ehrlich entered into a series of written agreements providing for the gradual sale of Marathon to Selmark and Ehrlich. Ehrlich subsequently became an employee and minority shareholder of Marathon. After Marathon and Selmark’s then-sole shareholder, David Elofson, terminated Ehrlich’s employment with Marathon, Ehrlich took a job with Tiger Electronics, a competing manufacturer’s representative company, where Ehrlich attempted to solicit several Marathon principals’ business. In 2008, Selmark and Marathon filed a breach of fiduciary complaint against Ehrlich. In response, Ehrlich asserted several counterclaims against Selmark, Marathon, and Elofson. The fury found (1) Ehrlich breached his fiduciary duties to Marathon by soliciting and acquiring Marathon principals for Tiger; (2) Selmark and Elofson committed a breach of contract to Ehrlich and breached their fiduciary duties to Ehrlich; and (3) all the Selmark parties engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Selmark and Marathon on their breach of fiduciary duty claim against Ehrlich; (2) affirmed the verdict in favor of Ehrlich on his breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim against Selmark and Elofson; (3) concluded that Ehrlich was entitled to recover on his breach of contract counterclaim but vacated the award of damages and remanded for a new trial on the issue of contractual damages; and (4) concluded that Ehrlich was not entitled to recover under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. View "Selmark Assocs., Inc. v. Ehrlich" on Justia Law

Stephanie Moulton was employed as a residential treatment counselor at North Suffolk Mental Health Association, Inc. when she was assaulted by DeShawn Chappell, one of the facility’s residents, causing her death. Moulton’s estate brought an action against the directors of North Suffolk, among other defendants, asserting claims for wrongful death and breach of fiduciary duty. The director defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) with respect to the wrongful death action, they were immune from suit, as Moulton’s employer, under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act); and (2) with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, they owed Moulton no such duty. The superior court denied the director defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, holding (1) the director defendants were immune from suit under the exclusive remedy provision of the Act for the injuries Moulton sustained while acting within the course of her employment; and (2) the directors, as Moulton’s employer, owed no fiduciary duty to their employee. Remanded for an entry of judgment for the director defendants on all claims. View "Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo" on Justia Law