Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Petitioners' petition for extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.Petitioners obtained an order requiring Ara Eresian, Jr. to identify all real estate in which he held an interest, but Eresian did not comply with that other. The land court judge denied Petitioners' request for an arrest warrant authorizing entry into Eresian's home. Thereafter, Petitioners filed their petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 requesting that the single justice issue an order authorizing the land court judge to issue an order authorizing the arrest warrant. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to make the required showing that they lacked an adequate alternative remedy. View "VonIderstein v. Eresian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court judge dismissing the underlying declaratory judgment complaint in this declaratory judgment action regarding the scope of the Department of Housing and Community Development's (DHCD) authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7A, holding that dismissal was warranted.Plaintiffs - location housing authorities (LHAs) of various cities and towns, current and former executive directors of LHAs and others - sought a judgment declaring that DHCD exceeded its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7A by promulgating guidelines that govern contracts between an LHA and its executive director and making compliance with the guidelines a requirement to obtain contractual approval from DHCD. A superior court judge allowed DHCD's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that LHAs have authority to hire executive directors and "determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, 7. View "Fairhaven Housing Authority v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that an agreement entered into between Plaintiff Anthony Gattineri and Defendants Wynn MA, LLC and Wynn Resorts, Limited (collectively, Wynn) in San Diego California (the San Diego agreement) was unenforceable for reasons of public policy.Wynn entered into an option contract with FBT Everett Realty, LLC (FBT) to purchase a parcel of property. As Wynn's application for a casino license proceeded, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission discovered that there was a possibility of concealed ownership interests in FBT by a convicted felon with organized crime connections. In response, FBT lowered the purchase price for the parcel. The Commission approved the amended option agreement. Gattineri, a minority owner of FBT, opposed the price reduction and refused to sign the certificate required by the Commission. Gattineri alleged that at the San Diego meeting Wynn had agreed to pay Gattineri an additional $19 million in exchange for Gattineri signing the certificate. After the Commission awarded Wynn a casino license Gattineri brought suit claiming breach of the San Diego agreement because Wynn never paid Gattineri the promised $19 million. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the agreement was deliberately concealed from the Commission and inconsistent with the terms approved by the Commission; and (2) enforcement of such a secret agreement constituted a clear violation of public policy. View "Gattineri v. Wynn MA, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated a portion of its prior order remanding this case to the superior court for entry of judgments of not guilty on indictments charging unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, holding that this Court erred.Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, firearms-related convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions and ordered that the superior court judge enter judgments of not guilty on the indictments, holding that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York Stat Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2122 (2022), which was entered after Defendant's convictions, the trial court judge erred when he failed to instruct the jury that Defendant lacked of a firearms license. The Court then granted the Commonwealth's motion for reconsideration, vacated the relevant portion of its prior order, and remanded the case for a retrial on those indictments, holding that because the constitutional rule established in Bruen did not exist at the time Defendant was convicted, the Commonwealth should have an opportunity to retry Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Guardado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal of the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the appeal was moot.After judgment entered against Petitioner in a summary process action Petitioner appealed, challenging the denial of her motions to stay execution of that judgment on the basis of illness. The Housing Court denied relief. Petitioner then sought a stay on the same ground, which a single justice of the Appeals Court denied. Petitioner subsequently petitioned the single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court seeking a stay of execution on the basis of illness. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the matter, holding that the matter was moot because the eviction Petitioner sought to stay had already occurred. View "Kahyaoglu v. Sillari Enterprises LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 from an order of the housing court requiring him to make use and occupancy payments, holding that the single justice properly denied the petition.Petitioner appealed from the entry of final judgment in favor of Respondent in a summary process action. A housing court judge granted Petitioner's motion to waive the appeal bond and ordered him to make monthly use and occupancy payments during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner sought interlocutory review, and the single justice affirmed. Petitioner then brought the instant petition seeking a reduction in the monthly use and occupancy payments, without success. After the deadline passed for tendering the outstanding use and occupancy payments Petitioner filed a motion requesting an extension. The single justice denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly denied relief. View "Cummins Realty Trust v. O'Neill" 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 Petitioner had no standing to obtain extraordinary relief in the instant matter.Petitioner filed an application in the district court for a criminal complaint charging an individual with witness intimidation and unlawful wiretapping. The application was denied due to lack of probable cause. Thereafter, Petitioner filed another application for criminal complaint in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) charging the same individual with witness intimidation. The BMC found no probable cause and did not issue the complaint. Petitioner then brought this action, and the single justice denied relief without addressing the merits. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief. View "In re Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint" 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 under the statute.Petitioner was charged with one count each of assault and battery and witness intimidation. After an evaluation, a doctor recommended that Petitioner be found incompetent to stand trial and that he remain in the Tewksbury State Hospital, where he had been involuntarily committed for evaluation. Petitioner's counsel stipulated to incompetency but objected to further commitment. Petitioner was ultimately involuntarily committed for an additional thirty days. Petitioner then brought this petition asking the single justice to vacate the involuntary commitment order. The single justice denied the petition without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy. View "In re Impounded Case" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Cummings Properties, LLC in this suit brought to enforce Darryl Hines's obligations as guarantor of a commercial lease, holding that Hines failed to meet his burden to prove that the amount provided for in the lease's liquidated damages clause was an unreasonable forecast of damages at the time the lease was signed.At issue was whether a liquidated damages clause in the lease was unenforceable where Hines's company defaulted on the rent but Cummings was able to relet the property. The trial judge found in favor of Cummings and awarded it the balance owed under the lease's liquidated damages clause. The appeals court reversed, determining that the liquidated damages provision was an unenforceable penalty because it did not account for the possibility that Cummings could, in mitigation of Hines's breach, relet the premises and collect rent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court has never required that the amount of a liquidated damages clause take into account any future rents collected from a new tenant to be enforceable; and (2) Hines failed to meet his burden to show that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable. View "Cummings Properties, LLC v. Hines" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court dismissing Petitioner's complaint seeking an order holding the Board of Registration in Medicine in contempt of an order of the Supreme Court, holding that the complaint was properly dismissed.After his license lapsed, Petitioner, who had been the subject of two disciplinary proceedings before the Board, filed a petition seeking immediate reinstatement of his license. Before the case could be heard, the Board agreed to reinstate Petitioner's license, and the parties entered into a voluntary stipulation of dismissal. Thereafter, the Board summarily suspended Petitioner's license because a second disciplinary proceeding had commenced against him. Petitioner then filed a complaint for civil contempt alleging that the temporary suspension was in contempt of the voluntary stipulation of dismissal. The complaint was dismissed without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the third single justice properly dismissed the complaint. View "Bock v. Bd. of Registration in Medicine" on Justia Law