Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s order allowing in part and denying in part the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s action alleging that Derek Smith, an MBTA bus driver, assaulted him, holding that the trial judge did not err.In his complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision; and vicarious liability. In allowing in part the MBTA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the superior court held (1) the MBTA was immune from the vicarious liability claim, and (2) Plaintiff failed adequately to present the negligence claim as required by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, 4, but the MBTA had waived the defense of defective presentment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court judge was warranted in concluding that the MBTA waived the affirmative defense of inadequate presentment by failing to plead it with the required specificity and particularity. View "Theisz v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction on a single count of deriving support from prostitution under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 7, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 7 is constitutional and that there was no prejudicial or other reversible error in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that because no definition of “pimp” or “purveyor” appears in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 7, the language of the statute is unconstitutionally vague and that he was prejudiced from jury instructions tracking such language. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the statute targets those who, with the intent to profit from prostitution, live or derive support or maintenance from, or share in the earnings or proceeds of, the known prostitution of others; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) while this Court clarifies prospectively the jury instructions, there was no prejudicial error in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the single justice that the decision of the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers suspending Michael Thomann’s license for ten days, imposing a $1,200 civil penalty, and imposing certain conditions on the reinstatement of his license was supported by substantial evidence and free of any errors of law.An administrative hearing officer concluded that the Board established that Thomas had violated 254 Code Mass. Regs. 2.00(11), 3.00(14)(e) and 3.00(13)(a) by engaging in the business of real estate brokering through an unlicesed limited liability company and by failing to provide a certain notice of agency disclosure to the seller of real property. As a sanction, the Board ordered suspension of Thomann’s license for ten days. On review, the single justice affirmed the Board’s final decision and order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the Board’s decision. View "Thomann v. Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers & Salesmen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions as a joint venturer of kidnapping and murder in the first degree and the denial of his motions for a new trial and for post trial discovery and further declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his clothing was properly denied; (2) statements that the prosecutor made during closing argument regarding blood evidence connecting Defendant to the crime did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) there was no reason to reduce the degree of guilt or grant a new trial pursuant to the Court’s superintendence powers. View "Commonwealth v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and the denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding that no reversible error occurred in the proceedings below and that the Court had no reason to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce or set aside the verdict.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by his inability to obtain before trial information related to the sole defense witness’s status as a confidential federal informant, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to require the Commonwealth to secure the witness’s informant records from federal authorities and in declining to compel the testimony of federal law enforcement officers; and (3) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Commonwealth v. Ayala" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held a party in a civil case has no right to an immediate appeal from a discovery order under the doctrine of present execution but nevertheless retains two other avenues to seek immediate appellate review of an interlocutory order.Plaintiffs brought a civil action against Defendants. During discovery, Plaintiffs sought certain information. The motion judge found that, contrary to Defendants’ claims, the information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants filed a notice of appeal seeking review under the doctrine of present execution and also brought a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 118 seeking interlocutory relief. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) orders requiring the disclosure of privileged material, such as the order in this case, are not appealable under the doctrine of present execution; and (2) although this appeal was not properly before the Court under the doctrine of present execution, the Court exercised its discretion under its superintendence authority to reach the merits and held that it must remand the matter to the motion judge for further factual findings. View "Patel v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the superior court judge properly denied Appellant release on his personal recognizance after finding that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of persons in the community.Appellant was indicted for trafficking of a personal for sexual services, deriving support from prostitution, and witness intimidation. After a dangerousness hearing in the witness intimidation case, the judge ordered that Appellant be held without bail for a period of not more than 120 days. The judge also set bail in the sex trafficking cases at $20,000. Appellant later sought a bail hearing, but no bail hearing was held at that time. Appellant then filed this petition, without success. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment denying relief, holding that Appellant failed to show that any of the judge’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that the judge otherwise erred or abused his discretion. View "Garcia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court allowing Defendant’s motion to dismiss this complaint seeking a judgment declaring that an appraisal was invalid and nonbinding and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the common-law rule established in Eliot v. Coulee, 322 Mass. 86, 91 (1947), properly balances the need for fair valuations with the need for finality in the appraisal process and that an appearance of bias alone is insufficient to invalidate an appraisal.The common-law rule established in Eliot provides that where parties agree that the fair value of a property shall be determined by an appraiser, the correctness of the methods of the appraiser’s valuation cannot be inquired into by the courts in the absence of fraud, corruption, dishonesty or bad faith. Plaintiff asked the Court to modify the rule to allow a judge to invalidate an appraisal where there is the appearance of bias on the part of the entity that employed the individual appraiser. The Supreme Judicial Court declined to modify the common-law rule and affirmed the dismissal of this case, holding that the facts alleged did not require a court to invalidate an independent appraisal agreed to by the parties. View "Buffalo-Water 1, LLC v. Fidelity Real Estate Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the district court denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial after he pleaded guilty to violating multiple controlled substances laws, holding that remand was required for further proceedings on Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the judge might have failed to recognize his discretion to credit or discredit Defendant’s affidavits as they pertained to plea counsel’s allegedly deficient performance and failed to make factual findings about whether special circumstances relevant to the prejudice inquiry existed.After Defendant entered his plea, he filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b), arguing that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance and that he would not have pleaded guilty if counsel had properly advised him about the plea’s immigration consequences. The motion judge denied the motion after holding a nonevidentiary hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the denial of the motion for a new trial, holding that remand was required for findings relating to the issue of plea counsel’s deficient performance and the issue of special circumstances. View "Commonwealth v. Lys" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking, inter alia, an order requiring the Appeals Court to accept his notice of appeal from its award of appellate attorney’s fees against him in the underlying litigation, holding that the single justice properly declined to exercise this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence under the statute.Petitioner filed a civil complaint that was eventually dismissed because of, inter alia, Petitioner’s multiple violations of interim court orders. The Appellate Division dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for failure to comply with the appellate rules. The Appeals Court affirmed. Petitioner then purported to appeal as a matter of right from the Appeals Court’s award of fees and double costs. The Appeals Court struck the notice of appeal, concluding that Petitioner had no right to appeal pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 6G. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that Petitioner had no right to appeal pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 6G, and because he could have applied for further appellate review in the Supreme Judicial Court, the single justice properly declined to exercise this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence. View "Reznik v. Mendes" on Justia Law