Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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.In her petition, Petitioner requested relief from the foreclosure of her home. The single justice denied the petition without holding a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner raised a jurisdictional challenge to the foreclosing mortgagee’s standing, the validity of the foreclosure, and her subsequent eviction. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy, and therefore, consideration of the issues raised by Petitioner by the Court under its extraordinary power of general superintendence was unnecessary. View "Brown v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Plaintiff’s petitions seeking relief from a summary process judgment and other orders entered against her in the housing court, holding that the single justice properly found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff’s filings made it clear that she had avenues available to her to pursue relief from the housing court orders and judgment other than by means of the petitions that she filed in this Court, and therefore, the single justice did not err in denying relief. View "Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC" 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 correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.This dispute between Petitioner and Respondent involving certain work that Respondent performed on a construction site started as a small claims action in the district court. The clerk-magistrate, and later a jury, found in favor of Respondent. After filing a notice of appeal Petitioner filed its petition alleging that it had no remedy other than to seek relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The single justice summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate, well-established alternative remedy. View "D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. Machado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the land court upholding the action of the board of appeals of Brookline allowing Defendant homeowners’ request for a special permit to modify the roof of their home to add a dormer, thus increasing the preexisting nonconforming floor area ratio, holding that Defendants were not required to obtain a variance from the town’s zoning bylaw.The board allowed Defendant’s request for a special permit, determining that the proposed project would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, 6 did not exempt Defendants from compliance with municipal bylaws and that Defendants were required to obtain a variance in addition to a special permit. The land court judgment upheld the board’s action. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, 6 requires an owner of a single- or two-family residential building with a preexisting nonconformity, who proposes a modification that is found to increase the nature of the nonconforming structure, to obtain a finding that the modification “shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood”; and (2) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, 6 does not require the homeowner to obtain a variance from the local bylaw under the circumstances. View "Bellalta v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied relief because Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.Petitioner pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges. Petitioner later filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where Petitioner could have raised his claims and sought to withdraw his pleas on the basis of his claims by filing a motion for a new trial and by appealing from any adverse ruling on such a motion, Petitioner’s petition was properly denied. View "Blackwell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying Appellant’s petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying the petition.Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree in 1971 and was retried in 1998. The jury again found Appellant guilty of murder in the first degree. The appellate court affirmed. In his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition, Appellant raised a jurisdictional argument that he previously raised in his second appeal and in subsequent proceedings before the appellate court and Supreme Judicial Court. The claim was rejected each time. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Appellant was not entitled to further review under the current petition of an issue that he had already raised, and which had already been resolved, in the course of his direct appeal and in subsequent proceedings. View "Beauchamp v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter as a youthful offender, holding that the evidence proved that, by her wanton or reckless misconduct, Defendant caused the victim’s death by suicide and that Defendant’s conviction was not legally or constitutionally infirm.The trial judge concluded that Defendant’s act of encouraging the victim with text messages and phone calls to commit suicide and failure to act to overpowered the victim’s will to live and caused the victim’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Defendant’s verbal conduct was not protected by the First Amendment; and (3) the other legal issues raise by Defendant lacked merit. View "Commonwealth v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a municipal court judge civilly committing M.C. for a period of two months, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support M.C.’s involuntary commitment and that M.C. was not denied due process of law despite the hearing being conducted at a hospital rather than at a court house and in the absence of a complete, verbatim transcript.Although M.C. sought to have the civil commitment hearing conducted at a court house, the hearing was held at the psychiatric facility where M.C. had been temporarily committed. At the beginning of the proceeding the court-owned recording equipment malfunctioned, and then two different alternate recording devices were used to record the remainder of the hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judge’s decision to civilly commit M.C., holding that the available transcript provided an adequate basis for appellate review and contained sufficient evidence to support M.C.’s involuntary commitment. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the trial judge’s issuance of harassment prevention orders against Defendant pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258E, 3(a), holding that Defendant’s conduct amounted to only one act of harassment, and therefore, Defendant’s conduct failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of the statute that a defendant commit at least three acts of harassment.Plaintiffs sought harassment prevention orders against Defendant after Defendant created a rap song in which he improvised lyrics pertaining to Plaintiffs. A district court judge issued the requested orders, concluding that, in posting the song on two Internet website and making the inflammatory statements within the song, Defendant had committed at least three individual acts of harassment against the plaintiffs. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order, holding that Defendant engaged only in one continuous act of harassment in this case. View "F.K. v. S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and the denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial and declined to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce the verdict, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in limiting Defendant’s cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses; and (2) the procedure suggested by the trial judge, and approved by defense counsel, of using two interpreters did not violate Defendant’s constitutional due process rights. View "Commonwealth v. Chicas" on Justia Law