profiles of the justices - Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
profiles of the justices - Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
profiles of the justices - Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Continued on page <br />
This section contains summaries <strong>of</strong> all decisions<br />
rendered by <strong>the</strong> Supreme Judicial Court<br />
during its recently completed (though un<strong>of</strong>ficial)<br />
“term” — running from Sept. 1, 2005 to<br />
Aug. 31, 2006. The full text <strong>of</strong> SJC opinions are<br />
available through our website, www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Administrative<br />
Smoking restrictions -<br />
Private clubs<br />
Where a judge concluded that <strong>the</strong> Athol<br />
board <strong>of</strong> health’s regulation prohibiting smoking<br />
in private clubs was void and unenforceable,<br />
that ruling must be vacated, as <strong>the</strong> board<br />
did not exceed its authority in promulgating<br />
<strong>the</strong> regulation.<br />
American Lithuanian Naturalization Club,<br />
Athol, Mass., Inc., et al. v. Board <strong>of</strong> Health <strong>of</strong><br />
Athol,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-047-06) (28<br />
pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC) Motion for injunctive<br />
relief heard by McCann, J., on a statement<br />
<strong>of</strong> agreed facts. Christopher N. Banthin and<br />
Mark A. Goldstein for <strong>the</strong> defendants; Michael<br />
J.Tremblay for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs; John M.Townsend,<br />
for Boston Public Health Commission, amicus<br />
curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09501) (March 22, 2006).<br />
Appeals<br />
Buccal swab - DNA analysis<br />
Where a petitioner has challenged a single<br />
justice’s decision refusing to disturb a Superior<br />
Court order that <strong>the</strong> petitioner submit a<br />
buccal swab for deoxyribonucleic acid analysis,<br />
<strong>the</strong> single justice’s decision will be allowed<br />
to stand, as <strong>the</strong> petitioner has not met his burden<br />
under SJC Rule 2:21.<br />
Brown v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-168-05) (1 page) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision entered by Greaney,J.,sitting<br />
as single justice. Roger Witkin for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09591) (Nov. 17, 2005).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 -<br />
Adequate alternate remedy<br />
Where a defendant petitioned a single justice<br />
seeking for a conviction reversal or sentence<br />
revision,<strong>the</strong> single justice rightly denied<br />
<strong>the</strong> petition on <strong>the</strong> ground <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong><br />
an adequate alternate remedy.<br />
Norris v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-111-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision <strong>of</strong> Cowin,J.,sitting as single<br />
justice.Kevin Norris,pro se (Docket No.SJC-<br />
09648) (June 26, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 -<br />
Alleged error in Probate &<br />
Family Court proceedings<br />
Where a single justice rejected a petition<br />
filed under G.L.c.211,§3,by an individual challenging<br />
certain Probate & Family Court proceedings,<strong>the</strong><br />
single justice committed no abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> discretion or o<strong>the</strong>r error <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
Affirmed.<br />
Marides v.Rossi (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-051-<br />
06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from a<br />
decision issued by Spina, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
Peter Marides, pro se; John N. Nestor and<br />
Michael McMahon were present for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
but did not argue (Docket No. SJC-09269)<br />
(March 27, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 -<br />
Appointment <strong>of</strong> counsel<br />
Where an individual filed a petition under<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3, challenging a denial <strong>of</strong> his request<br />
to proceed pro se and <strong>the</strong> appointment<br />
<strong>of</strong> counsel for him,a single justice correctly denied<br />
<strong>the</strong> petition in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioner’s inability<br />
to demonstrate that no adequate alternative<br />
remedy existed for him.<br />
Glawson v.Commonwealth (No.2) (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-186-05) (2 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision issued by Ireland,<br />
J., sitting as single justice. Richard Glawson,<br />
pro se, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09553) (Dec. 12, 2005).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 - Posting <strong>of</strong> bond<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211, §3, from a Superior Court judge’s denial <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioner’s motion for an order requiring<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiffs in a special permit case to post a<br />
cash or surety bond, <strong>the</strong> petitioner’s request for<br />
relief was rightly rejected in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
he had o<strong>the</strong>r adequate available means <strong>of</strong> appeal.<br />
Mirrione,trustee,v.Jacobs,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-028-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC)<br />
Appealed from a decision issued by Greaney, J.,<br />
sitting as single justice.Edmund A.Allcock for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff (Docket No. SJC-09601) (Feb. 13, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 -<br />
Pretrial detainee - Transfer<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief, pursuant<br />
to G.L.c. 211, §3, from an order transferring<br />
him from a county jail to a state correctional<br />
facility, <strong>the</strong> petition was properly denied because<br />
(1) <strong>the</strong> transfer was authorized under<br />
G.L.c.276,§52A and (2) <strong>the</strong> petitioner had o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
adequate avenues for seeking relief.<br />
MacDougall v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-140-06) (12 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
considered by Ireland,J.,sitting as single justice.Peter<br />
M. Onek and John Reinstein for Committee for<br />
Public Counsel Services and ano<strong>the</strong>r;Brian A.Wilson<br />
for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;Mark MacDougall,pro<br />
se, submitted a brief; Nancy Ankers White and<br />
William D.Saltzman for Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Correction,<br />
amicus curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09509) (Aug. 28, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 - Protective order<br />
Where an individual petitioned a single justice<br />
for relief from a certain protective order,<br />
<strong>the</strong> single justice acted permissibly in denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> petition on <strong>the</strong> ground <strong>of</strong> an adequate alternative<br />
avenue <strong>of</strong> relief.<br />
Ray v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-112-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision issued by Spina,J.,sitting as single<br />
justice. Willie J. Davis for <strong>the</strong> petitioner<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09671) (June 26, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 - ‘Statute<br />
<strong>of</strong> limitations’claim<br />
Where (1) a Superior Court judge rejected a<br />
petitioner’s claim that an indictment was barred<br />
by <strong>the</strong> statute <strong>of</strong> limitations, (2) <strong>the</strong> petitioner<br />
sought relief from a single justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present<br />
court and (3) <strong>the</strong> single justice denied <strong>the</strong> petitioner<br />
relief, we conclude that <strong>the</strong> single justice<br />
acted correctly, as <strong>the</strong> petitioner failed to meet<br />
his burden <strong>of</strong> proving that he lacked an adequate<br />
alternative to relief under G.L.c. 211, §3.<br />
Ackerman v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-013-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision issued by Greaney, J., sitting<br />
as single justice.Christopher S.Skinner for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff (Docket No. SJC-09578) (Jan. 18, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 - Stay <strong>of</strong><br />
execution <strong>of</strong> sentence<br />
Where a single justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present court<br />
denied an individual’s motion for stay <strong>of</strong> execution<br />
<strong>of</strong> sentence,<strong>the</strong> single justice did not err<br />
in declining to release <strong>the</strong> man especially in<br />
light <strong>of</strong> that individual’s long criminal record.<br />
Christian v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-044-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision issued by Greaney,J.sitting as single<br />
justice.James L.Rogal for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;Susanne<br />
G. Reardon for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09470) (March 14, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Appeal bond<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211,§3 from a Superior Court order declining<br />
to waive an appeal bond in connection with an<br />
appeal from a summary process judgment, a<br />
Continued on page B2
B2 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 274<br />
Continued from page B1<br />
single justice’s decision to deny <strong>the</strong> petition<br />
should be affirmed, as <strong>the</strong> proper course for<br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioner to have followed, if she wished<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r to challenge <strong>the</strong> bond,“was to refuse to<br />
pay <strong>the</strong> bond, suffer <strong>the</strong> dismissal <strong>of</strong> her summary<br />
process appeal, and <strong>the</strong>n appeal to <strong>the</strong><br />
Appeals Court (on <strong>the</strong> limited bond issue)<br />
from <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong> dismissal.”<br />
Erickson v.Somers,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-072-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Cordy, J., sitting as single justice. Heidi<br />
K. Erickson, pro se; Norma B. Somers, pro se<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09336) (April 21, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Appealable order<br />
Where a Superior Court judge appointed a<br />
receiver to sell condominium units subject to<br />
various alleged outstanding debts,a G.L.c.211,<br />
§3 petition challenging <strong>the</strong> judge’s order was<br />
correctly denied on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> order<br />
was appealable under <strong>the</strong> doctrine <strong>of</strong> present<br />
execution.<br />
Colomba, et al. v. DWC Associates, LLC,<br />
trustee (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-109-06) (2<br />
pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard by Greaney,<br />
J., sitting as single justice. David M. Mc-<br />
Glone for Gaetano Colomba; Robert S. Wolfe<br />
for Blanca Martinez and o<strong>the</strong>rs (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09707) (June 23, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Condominium<br />
Where petitioners sought review, under<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3, <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> rulings concerning<br />
a condominium dispute, <strong>the</strong> petition<br />
was properly denied on <strong>the</strong> ground that none<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ claims are appropriate for<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 review.<br />
Scott-Jones, et al. v. Lu, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-110-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Greaney, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
Diane Scott-Jones and John E. Jones Jr., pro<br />
se, submitted a memorandum <strong>of</strong> law (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09710) (June 23, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Criminal complaint<br />
Where a defendant filed a G.L.c.211,§3 petition<br />
after his motion to dismiss a criminal<br />
complaint was denied, a single justice committed<br />
no error in denying <strong>the</strong> petition in light<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r available remedies.<br />
Aldrich v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-031-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision by Spina,J.,sitting as single<br />
justice. Robert Aldrich, pro se (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09572) (Feb. 14, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Double jeopardy<br />
Where a petitioner pleaded guilty to Norfolk<br />
County indictments while o<strong>the</strong>r indictments<br />
in Suffolk and Middlesex Counties were<br />
pending, <strong>the</strong>se circumstances did not amount<br />
to a double jeopardy violation.<br />
Glawson v. Commonwealth, et al. (No. 1)<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-185-05) (3 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision by Ireland,J.,sitting<br />
as single justice.Susanne G.Reardon<br />
on brief for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth and o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09424) (Dec. 12, 2005).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition -<br />
Single justice<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief from a single<br />
justice pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, an order<br />
denying <strong>the</strong> petition should be affirmed in light<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r available avenues for obtaining <strong>the</strong> requested<br />
relief.<br />
Gianopoulos v.Clerk-Magistrate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attleboro<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> District Court, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-030-06) (2 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision by<br />
Cowin, J., sitting as single justice. Peter A. Gianopoulos<br />
Jr., pro se, submitted a brief (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09640) (Feb. 14, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition<br />
Where (1) a District Court judge entered a<br />
judgment against a petitioner, (2) a motion to<br />
extend <strong>the</strong> time to file a notice <strong>of</strong> appeal was<br />
denied and (3) <strong>the</strong> petitioner <strong>the</strong>n sought relief<br />
under G.L.c. 211, §3, <strong>the</strong> petition was correctly<br />
denied by a single justice based on <strong>the</strong><br />
availability <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r adequate avenues <strong>of</strong> relief<br />
Marnerakis v.Phillips,Silver,Talman,Aframe<br />
& Sinrich,P.C.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-018-06)<br />
(3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard by Ireland,<br />
J., sitting as single justice. Costas Marnerakis,<br />
pro se; Jessica L. Godfrey for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09398) (Jan. 23, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211, §3 in connection with <strong>the</strong> defendant society’s<br />
seizure <strong>of</strong> her animals, an order denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> petition should be affirmed because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioner’s noncompliance with S.J.C.Rule 2:21.<br />
Pina v.<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Society for <strong>the</strong> Prevention<br />
<strong>of</strong> Cruelty to Animals (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-090-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Greaney,J.,sitting as single justice.Timothy<br />
W. Mungovan and Stephen M. LaRose for<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant; Patricia Renee Pina, pro se<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09466) (May 19, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition<br />
Where a plaintiff sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211, §3 from an Appeals Court decision ordering<br />
<strong>the</strong> entry <strong>of</strong> judgment for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
on <strong>the</strong> ground <strong>of</strong> qualified immunity, a single<br />
justice acted properly in denying <strong>the</strong> G.L.c.211,<br />
§3 petition in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
could have, but did not, seek fur<strong>the</strong>r appellate<br />
review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court decision.<br />
“... Relief pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, is not<br />
available where <strong>the</strong> petitioner can seek <strong>the</strong> requested<br />
relief by o<strong>the</strong>r adequate and effective<br />
avenues. ...”<br />
‘Abdullah v.Secretary <strong>of</strong> Public Safety (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-130-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC)<br />
Petition heard by Cordy,J.,sitting as single justice.<br />
‘Omar ‘Abdullah,pro se,submitted a brief (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09588) (Aug. 3, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition<br />
Where petitioners sought relief pursuant to<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3, <strong>the</strong> petition was correctly denied<br />
by a single justice based on <strong>the</strong> availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r avenues <strong>of</strong> relief.<br />
Harrison, et al. v. Roncone, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-098-06) (3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC)<br />
Petition heard by Spina,J.,sitting as single justice.<br />
John L. Diaz and Robert O. Berger for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
Terrance J. Hamilton for <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09442) (June 15, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 petition<br />
Where petitioners sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211,§3 from certain orders by a Superior Court<br />
judge, a single justice acted properly in denying<br />
that petition in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court orders may eventually be challenged<br />
on direct appeal.<br />
Farahani, et al. v. Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance<br />
Co., et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-014-<br />
06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard by<br />
Sosman,J.,sitting as single justice.Ghodrat Farahani,<br />
pro se, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09428) (Jan. 18, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3<br />
Where a single justice denied, without a<br />
hearing, an individual’s petition for relief under<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3, <strong>the</strong> single justice acted correctly<br />
in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> petitioner had<br />
an adequate alternative remedy.<br />
Tavares v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-132-06) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from<br />
a decision issued by Greaney, J., sitting as single<br />
justice. Daniel D. Tavares, pro se (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09709) (Aug. 10, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3<br />
Where a single justice has denied an individual’s<br />
request for relief under G.L.c. 211, §3,<br />
we hold (1) that <strong>the</strong> single justice has acted<br />
within his discretion in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r adequate remedies and should have<br />
his decision affirmed,but also (2) that <strong>the</strong> present<br />
matter should be remanded to <strong>the</strong> county<br />
court for reconsideration as a petition under<br />
G.L.c. 278, §33E.<br />
Allen v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-050-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appeal<br />
<strong>of</strong> a decision issued by Cordy, J., sitting as<br />
single justice.William J. Allen, pro se; Timothy<br />
J. Cruz and Carolyn A. Burbine for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09220) (March<br />
27, 2006).<br />
Mootness<br />
Where a murder defendant filed a petition<br />
challenging various discovery orders, an appeal<br />
<strong>of</strong> a single justice’s order denying <strong>the</strong> petition<br />
must be dismissed as moot in light <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> defendant has since been<br />
convicted.<br />
Sliech-Brodeur v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-108-06) (2 pages) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Spina, J., sitting as single justice John<br />
M. Thompson and Linda J. Thompson, pro se,<br />
submitted a memorandum <strong>of</strong> law (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09674) (June 23, 2006).<br />
Mootness -<br />
Appointment <strong>of</strong> counsel<br />
Where a petitioner argues that a single justice<br />
erred in declining to appoint counsel to assist<br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioner with his appeal from an order<br />
denying his motion for a new trial in an<br />
underlying criminal case,<strong>the</strong> petition must be<br />
denied as moot in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> appeal<br />
from <strong>the</strong> order denying <strong>the</strong> motion for a<br />
new trial has been resolved.<br />
Ewing c. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-201-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision by Cowin, J., sitting as<br />
single justice. Shannon Ewing, pro se (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09364) (Dec. 30, 2005).<br />
Mootness -<br />
G.L.c. 211, §3 Petition<br />
Where a plaintiff filed a G.L.c.211,§3 petition<br />
seeking review <strong>of</strong> a Superior Court judge’s denial<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously<br />
in a suit against <strong>the</strong> defendant physician,<br />
an appeal from a single justice’s order denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> petition must be dismissed as moot in light<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> plaintiff has filed an amended<br />
complaint using his true name.<br />
Doe v. Chapman (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
161-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard<br />
by Sosman, J., sitting as single justice. Robert C.<br />
Gabler and Carmen L. Durso for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09452) (Oct. 14, 2005).<br />
Mootness - Motion to vacate<br />
Where a petitioner unsuccessfully sought<br />
relief under G.L.c. 211, §3 after <strong>the</strong> District<br />
Court failed to rule on his motion to vacate<br />
G.L.c. 209A orders, his appeal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> denial <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> G.L.c. 211 petition must be dismissed as<br />
moot in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> District has<br />
acted on his motion.<br />
Santiago v.Young (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-049-<br />
06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard by Ireland,<br />
J., sitting as single justice. William Santiago,<br />
pro se (Docket No. SJC-09389) (March 24, 2006).<br />
Mootness - Petition<br />
under G.L.c. 211, §3 - SDP<br />
Where a petitioner sought an order setting a<br />
trial date under G.L.c. 123A, §9, <strong>the</strong> petitioner’s<br />
appeal <strong>of</strong> a single justice’s decision denying <strong>the</strong><br />
petition must be dismissed as moot in light <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that a trial date has been set.<br />
Pentlarge v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-159-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Cowin,J.,sitting as single justice.<br />
John G. Swomley for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09468) (Oct. 5, 2005).<br />
‘Motion for leave<br />
to file appeal late’<br />
Where a petitioner, having pled guilty to numerous<br />
<strong>of</strong>fenses in 1998,filed a “Motion for Leave<br />
to File Notice <strong>of</strong> Appeal Late,” a single justice acted<br />
properly by denying <strong>the</strong> request for relief on <strong>the</strong><br />
ground that <strong>the</strong> petitioner “cannot demonstrate<br />
<strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> adequate alternative remedies.”<br />
Fernandez v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-169-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Spina, J., sitting as single justice<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09561) (Nov. 17, 2005).<br />
Petition - G.L.c. 211, §3<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief under 211,§3<br />
in connection with his sentencing, <strong>the</strong> petition<br />
was correctly denied on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> petitioner<br />
had obtained appellate review <strong>of</strong> his claim.<br />
Cepulonis v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-069-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Cowin,J.,sitting as single justice.<br />
Richard Cepulonis, pro se (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09627) (April 21, 2006).<br />
Petition for extraordinary<br />
relief - G.L.c. 211, §3<br />
Where a petitioner sought relief under G.L.c.<br />
211, §3, we conclude that a single justice acted<br />
correctly in denying <strong>the</strong> petition based on <strong>the</strong><br />
availability <strong>of</strong> adequate relief through <strong>the</strong> normal<br />
appellate process.<br />
Votta v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.
Cite this page 35 MLW 275 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B3<br />
10-154-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard<br />
by Spina, J., sitting as single justice. John C. Votta<br />
Jr.,pro se;Jane L.Fitzpatrick for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09456) (Sept. 19, 2005).<br />
Petition for writ <strong>of</strong> mandamus<br />
Where an individual petitioned a single justice<br />
for a writ <strong>of</strong> mandamus, <strong>the</strong> single justice<br />
properly denied <strong>the</strong> request, as (1) <strong>the</strong> petitioner<br />
was seeking to compel <strong>the</strong> Appellate Division<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Attorney General to perform<br />
discretionary acts and (2) mandamus relief is<br />
appropriate only to compel <strong>the</strong> performance<br />
<strong>of</strong> ministerial acts, not discretionary ones.<br />
Murray v. Commonwealth, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-131-06) (3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC)<br />
Appeal <strong>of</strong> a decision issued by Ireland,J.,sitting as<br />
single justice. James Murray, on brief, pro se; Susanne<br />
G.Reardon,on brief,for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09550) (Aug. 10, 2006).<br />
Single justice -<br />
New trial motion<br />
Where a single justice has rejected a defendant’s<br />
request for leave to appeal a denial <strong>of</strong> his new trial<br />
motion,<strong>the</strong> single justice has acted permissibly<br />
under <strong>the</strong> “gatekeeper” provisions <strong>of</strong> G.L.c. 278,<br />
§33E, and her decision will not be disturbed.<br />
Commonwealth v.Robles (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-189-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed<br />
from a decision issued by Sosman,J.,sitting as single<br />
justice. Paul Robles, pro se, submitted a brief<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09595) (Dec. 13, 2005).<br />
Single justice opinion -<br />
Adequate routes <strong>of</strong> relief<br />
Where a single justice denied, without a<br />
hearing, a petition filed under G.L.c. 211, §3,<br />
<strong>the</strong> single justice acted properly in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
petitioner’s failure to demonstrate a lack <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
adequate routes <strong>of</strong> relief.<br />
Scott v. District Attorney for <strong>the</strong> Norfolk District<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-188-05) (1 page)<br />
(Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from a decision issued<br />
by Greaney, J., sitting as single justice. Lorenzo<br />
Q.Scott,pro se,submitted a brief; Robert C.Cosgrove<br />
submitted a brief for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09490) (Dec. 12, 2005).<br />
Single justice’s opinion -<br />
New trial motion<br />
Where a single justice refused a defendant<br />
convicted <strong>of</strong> first-degree murder and armed<br />
JUSTICE JOHN<br />
M. GREANEY<br />
Appointed to SJC: 1989<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2009<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 22<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 3<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 4<br />
Notable decision: Care and Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Sharlene (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-010-<br />
06), which held that <strong>the</strong> stepfa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> a<br />
critically injured child in DSS custody<br />
had no standing to challenge an order to<br />
withdraw life support.<br />
robbery leave to appeal a denial <strong>of</strong> his new trial<br />
motion to <strong>the</strong> full Supreme Judicial Court,<br />
<strong>the</strong> single justice acted permissibly and his decision<br />
will be affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v.Herbert (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-187-05) (1 page) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from<br />
a decision issued by Greaney,J.,sitting as single justice.Roger<br />
C.Herbert,pro se,submitted a brief;John<br />
P. Zanini submitted a brief for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09334) (Dec. 12, 2005).<br />
Single justice’s order - Certiorari<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> petitioners have appealed from<br />
a single justice’s decision, <strong>the</strong> appeal must be<br />
rejected because <strong>the</strong> single justice committed<br />
no error <strong>of</strong> law or abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion in denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioners’request for relief in <strong>the</strong> nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> certiorari.<br />
Picciotto, et al. v. Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-076-06) (3 pages)<br />
(Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from a judgment issued<br />
by Greaney,J.,sitting as single justice.Stefano Picciotto,<br />
pro se; Maryanne Reynolds Martin for <strong>the</strong><br />
respondent (Docket No.SJC-0993) (May 2,2006).<br />
Arbitration<br />
Out-<strong>of</strong>-state counsel<br />
Where a single justice denied <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’<br />
request for declaratory relief regarding <strong>the</strong><br />
right <strong>of</strong> an attorney not licensed in <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
to represent <strong>the</strong> defendants,<strong>the</strong> single justice<br />
was warranted in denying <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir requested relief.<br />
Mscisz, et al. v. Kashner Davidson Securities<br />
Corp., et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-053-06) (3<br />
pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Appealed from a decision<br />
by Cordy,J.,sitting as single justice.William P.Corbett<br />
Jr.for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;Richard J.Babnick Jr.,Marc.<br />
J. Ross and Howard M. Smith for <strong>the</strong> defendants;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici curiae:Timothy<br />
P. Burke, Mat<strong>the</strong>w C. Applebaum, Ka<strong>the</strong>rine<br />
W. Grearson, Richard A. Johnston, Mark C. Fleming<br />
and James S. Goldman for Boston Bar Association;<br />
Timothy P. Burke and Mat<strong>the</strong>w C. Applebaum<br />
for Securities Industry Association;Andrew<br />
R.Grainger,Martin J.Newhouse and Ben Robbins<br />
for New England Legal Foundation (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09529) (March 28, 2006).<br />
Sanctions - Discovery -<br />
Out-<strong>of</strong>-state counsel<br />
Where a plaintiff has challenged an arbitration<br />
award, <strong>the</strong> appeal must fail, as (1) <strong>the</strong> fact<br />
that <strong>the</strong> defendant’s attorney was not licensed to<br />
Continued on page B4
B4 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 276<br />
Continued from page B3<br />
practice law in <strong>Massachusetts</strong> does not render<br />
<strong>the</strong> award void and (2) <strong>the</strong> arbitration panel acted<br />
permissibly by ordering <strong>the</strong> plaintiff to pay<br />
monetary sanctions for a discovery violation.<br />
Superadio Limited Partnership v.Winstar Radio<br />
Productions, LLC (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
052-06) (20 pages) (Greaney, J.) (Spina, J., with<br />
whom Cowin, J., joins, concurring in part and<br />
dissenting in part) (SJC) Case heard by Fecteau,<br />
J., in Superior Court. John O. Mirick and Jessica<br />
H. Munyon for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; John D. Geelan<br />
and Michelle M. Hansen for <strong>the</strong> defendant; <strong>the</strong><br />
following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Timothy<br />
P. Burke, Mat<strong>the</strong>w C. Applebaum, Ka<strong>the</strong>rine<br />
W. Grearson, Richard A. Johnston, Mark C.<br />
Fleming and James S. Goldman for Boston Bar<br />
Association; Timothy P. Burke and Mat<strong>the</strong>w C.<br />
Applebaum for Securities Industry Association;<br />
Andrew R. Grainger, Martin J. Newhouse and<br />
Ben Robbins for New England Legal Foundation<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09542) (March 28, 2006).<br />
Attorneys<br />
Disbarment - Client’s<br />
uncorroborated claim<br />
Where an attorney has been disbarred, <strong>the</strong><br />
disbarment order must be upheld based on evidence<br />
<strong>of</strong> misconduct.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong>: Dasent, Carlton J. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-071-06) (4 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision by Cowin,J.,sitting<br />
as single justice. James S. Dilday for <strong>the</strong> respondent;<br />
Daniel C. Crane, Bar Counsel, and<br />
Dorothy Anderson, Assistant Bar Counsel<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09515) (April 21, 2006).<br />
Disbarment - Overbilling -<br />
Issue preclusion<br />
Where a client obtained over $800,000 in<br />
damages in a federal court action against an<br />
attorney, <strong>the</strong> attorney should be disbarred<br />
based on his misconduct.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong>:Goldstone,Daniel W.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-192-05) (24 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC)<br />
Case reported by Spina, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
David G. Hanrahan for <strong>the</strong> respondent; Dorothy<br />
Anderson,Assistant Bar Counsel (Docket No.SJC-<br />
09453) (Dec. 16, 2005).<br />
Discipline - Corporate funds<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Board <strong>of</strong> Bar Overseers has recommended<br />
that an attorney be suspended for<br />
two years,<strong>the</strong> recommendation should be adopted<br />
based on evidence that <strong>the</strong> attorney temporarily<br />
transferred to his own use $130,000 in<br />
assets <strong>of</strong> a corporation for which he was serving<br />
as chief executive <strong>of</strong>ficer and sole director.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> Barrett,Donal B.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-136-06) (22 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Greaney, J., sitting as single justic. Donal<br />
B. Barrett, pro se; Robert I. Warner, Assistant Bar<br />
Counsel (Docket No. SJC-09508) (Aug. 16, 2006).<br />
Discipline - Criticism <strong>of</strong> judge<br />
Where an attorney has appealed a single justice’s<br />
order disbarring him,<strong>the</strong> appeal must fail<br />
because <strong>the</strong> single justice committed no error<br />
<strong>of</strong> law or abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion.<br />
In reaching this conclusion,we hold that <strong>the</strong><br />
attorney lacked an objectively reasonable basis<br />
for his public statements critical <strong>of</strong> a judge.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong>: Cobb, Mat<strong>the</strong>w (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-182-05) (44 pages) (Spina, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Greaney, J., sitting as single<br />
justice.Case submitted on briefs; Mat<strong>the</strong>w Cobb,<br />
pro se; Daniel C. Crane, Bar Counsel, and Jane<br />
R.Rabe,Assistant Bar Counsel (Docket No.SJC-<br />
09333) (Dec. 8, 2005).<br />
Discipline - Practice <strong>of</strong><br />
law during suspension<br />
Where an attorney,adjudicated in contempt<br />
<strong>of</strong> an order suspending him from <strong>the</strong> practice<br />
<strong>of</strong> law, was given an additional period <strong>of</strong> suspension,<br />
that decision was proper in light <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> justice’s conclusion that <strong>the</strong> attorney rendered<br />
legal services to two clients after <strong>the</strong> effective<br />
date <strong>of</strong> his suspension.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong>: Shaughnessy, William H.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-070-06) (2 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision by Sosman,<br />
J.,sitting as single justice.William H.Shaughnessy,<br />
pro se; Susan A. Strauss Weisberg, Assistant Bar<br />
Counsel (Docket No.SJC-09560) (April 21,2006).<br />
Fees - Prevailing party -<br />
Governmental opponent<br />
Where a plaintiff sought counsel fees in connection<br />
with a suit brought under federal law<br />
against <strong>the</strong> defendant <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mental Retardation,an order denying<br />
that request must be affirmed based on U.S.<br />
Supreme Court precedent.<br />
Newell v. Department <strong>of</strong> Mental Retardation<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-046-06) (34 pages) (Marshall,<br />
C.J.) (SJC) Case tried before Fahey, J.; motion<br />
for attorney’s fees heard by her and complaint<br />
for contempt also heard by her. Daniel S. Sharp<br />
and Elaine Whitfield Sharp for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;Ronald<br />
F.Kehoe and Jacquelyn Berman for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09439) (March 20, 2006).<br />
Fee-sharing agreement -<br />
Referral - Client’s written consent<br />
Where a judge ordered <strong>the</strong> defendant attorneys<br />
to pay <strong>the</strong> plaintiff attorney one-third <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> fees earned in representing a client referred<br />
to <strong>the</strong> defendants by <strong>the</strong> plaintiff,this order was<br />
proper in light <strong>of</strong> an oral fee-sharing agreement<br />
between <strong>the</strong> parties.<br />
“We also decide that hereafter, in order to<br />
satisfy pr<strong>of</strong>essional ethical requirements,<br />
lawyers who participate in a fee-sharing agreement<br />
must obtain <strong>the</strong> client’s consent in writing<br />
before <strong>the</strong> referral is made.”<br />
Saggese v.Kelley,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
180-05) (17 pages) (Spina,J.) (SJC) Case heard by<br />
Sanders,J.;motion to alter or amend <strong>the</strong> judgment<br />
also heard by her. H. Reed Wi<strong>the</strong>rby for <strong>the</strong> defendants;Robert<br />
D.Cohan for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09484) (Nov. 30, 2005).<br />
Misconduct - Discipline<br />
Where (1) <strong>the</strong> hearing committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Board<br />
<strong>of</strong> Bar Overseers found that a respondent attorney<br />
had engaged in conduct characterized as involving<br />
“clear,personal conflicts <strong>of</strong> interest with<br />
elderly, unsophisticated and vulnerable clients”<br />
and (2) a divided Board <strong>the</strong>n recommended that<br />
<strong>the</strong> respondent be suspended from <strong>the</strong> practice<br />
<strong>of</strong> law for two years,we conclude that a more severe<br />
sanction is warranted and <strong>the</strong>refore will order<br />
that <strong>the</strong> respondent be indefinitely suspended<br />
from <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong>: Lupo, Robert N. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-127-06) (25 pages) (Marshall,<br />
C.J.) (SJC) Case reported by Greaney, J., sitting<br />
as single justice. John W. Marshall, Asst. Bar<br />
Counsel; Edward Foye, Heidi A. Nadel and Brian<br />
J. Kelly for <strong>the</strong> respondent (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09686) (July 28, 2006).<br />
Civil practice<br />
Assignment -<br />
Contractual indemnification<br />
Where a general contractor assigned its contractual<br />
indemnification and breach <strong>of</strong> contract<br />
claims against its subcontractor to an employee<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subcontractor who was injured on <strong>the</strong> job,<br />
we hold that <strong>the</strong> assignment was valid.<br />
Spellman, et al. v. Shawmut Woodworking &<br />
Supply,Inc.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-001-06) (14<br />
pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC) Motion to amend and<br />
dismiss third-party complaint heard by Fahey,J.,<br />
and questions law reported by her to <strong>the</strong> Appeals<br />
Court; SJC transferred <strong>the</strong> case on its own initiative.<br />
Andrew S. Wainwright for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
Mark B. Lavoie for <strong>the</strong> defendant; John B. Glynn<br />
and William T. Harrington for third-party defendant<br />
East Coast Firepro<strong>of</strong>ing, Inc.; Myles W.<br />
McDonough submitted a brief for Associated<br />
Subcontractors <strong>of</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong>,Inc.,amicus curiae<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09503) (Jan. 3, 2006).<br />
Discovery - Sexual abuse<br />
charges - Videotaped interviews<br />
Where two plaintiff minors, having filed a<br />
civil suit over alleged sexual abuse <strong>the</strong>y suffered<br />
at school,requested copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir videotaped<br />
interviews conducted during <strong>the</strong> course<br />
<strong>of</strong> a now-concluded criminal investigation into<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir abuse allegations, an order allowing <strong>the</strong><br />
discovery request should be affirmed, as <strong>the</strong><br />
district attorney for <strong>the</strong> northwestern district<br />
has failed to show that <strong>the</strong> videotaped evidence<br />
is exempt from disclosure under G.L.c. 4, §7.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> a Subpoena Duces Tecum<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-002-06) (10 pages) (Ireland,J.)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Cowin,J.,sitting<br />
as single justice.Judith Ellen Pietras for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Joan A. Antonino, for John Doe &<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs,submitted a brief (Docket No.SJC-09324)<br />
(Jan. 5, 2006).<br />
Interpreter - Immigrant<br />
Where (1) a jury found for <strong>the</strong> defendant in a<br />
personal injury case concerning machinery and<br />
(2) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff now claims that she should have<br />
been granted an interpreter,that argument must<br />
be rejected on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> plaintiff does<br />
not qualify as a non-English speaker.<br />
Crivello, et al. v. All-Pak Machinery Systems,<br />
Inc., et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-086-06) (16<br />
pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC) Case tried before<br />
Whitehead, J.; motion for a new trial heard by<br />
him. Paul L. Kenny and Richard C. Chambers<br />
Jr. for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Myles W. McDonough for<br />
Pacemaker Packaging Corp.; Nicholas Grimaldi<br />
for All-Pak Machinery Systems, Inc. (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09525) (May 16, 2006).<br />
Petition for writ <strong>of</strong> certiorari<br />
Where a single justice has denied a petitioner’s<br />
“Complaint in <strong>the</strong> Nature <strong>of</strong> a Petition for a Writ<br />
<strong>of</strong> Certiorari and to Invoke <strong>the</strong> General Superintendence<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court,” we hold that <strong>the</strong> single<br />
justice acted permissibly, as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petition<br />
should have been pursued by means <strong>of</strong> a direct<br />
appeal and <strong>the</strong> relief sought by <strong>the</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> petition was not supported by <strong>the</strong> record.<br />
Feinman v.New Bedford Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> District<br />
Court Department, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
085-06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition heard<br />
by Cowin,J.,sitting as single justice.Alex Feinman,<br />
pro se (Docket No. SJC-09238) (May 15, 2006).<br />
Probate rules - Exhaustion<br />
Where a will proponent desires to move for<br />
summary judgment under Rule 27B <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Probate Court, he or she may do<br />
so without first having exhausted <strong>the</strong> procedures<br />
set forth in Rule 16.<br />
O’Rourke v. Hunter (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
094-06) (23 pages) (Marshall, C.J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Roach, J., on a motion for summary<br />
judgment. Barry A. Bachrach for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Michael J. Traft for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09637) (May 31, 2006).<br />
SDP - Deadline<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> commonwealth’s petition for <strong>the</strong><br />
civil commitment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant as a sexually<br />
dangerous person was dismissed, <strong>the</strong> dismissal<br />
order should be affirmed on <strong>the</strong> ground<br />
that <strong>the</strong> petition did not comply with <strong>the</strong> 60-<br />
day deadline <strong>of</strong> G.L.c. 123A, §13(a).<br />
Commonwealth v.Parra (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-163-05) (8 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Following<br />
an order <strong>of</strong> temporary commitment issued by<br />
Kottmyer, J., a motion to dismiss <strong>the</strong> petition was<br />
heard by Fahey, J., and a motion for reconsidera-
Cite this page 35 MLW 277 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B5<br />
tion was also heard by her. A.J. Camelio for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth; David Hirsch for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09552) (Nov. 2, 2005).<br />
SDP commitment statute<br />
Where a trial court judge has reported <strong>the</strong> correctness<br />
<strong>of</strong> her ruling and has asked “Does <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Commonwealth<br />
v. Knowlton, 379 Mass. 479 (1979), prescribing<br />
substantive procedures and protections<br />
for incompetent respondents in [‘sexually dangerous<br />
person’] proceedings under <strong>the</strong> now repealed<br />
§6 <strong>of</strong> c. 123A, apply to a proceeding under<br />
§12 <strong>of</strong> c.123A?,”we respond in <strong>the</strong> negative.<br />
Commonwealth v. Nieves (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-074-06) (22 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
Questions <strong>of</strong> law reported by Fahey,J.; Supreme<br />
Judicial Court, on its own initiative, transferred<br />
case from Appeals Court.Lillian Cheng and Kate<br />
Berrigan MacDougall for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Mark J.Gillis for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No.SJC-<br />
09615) (April 27, 2006).<br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
CHIEF JUSTICE MAR-<br />
GARET H. MARSHALL<br />
Appointed to SJC: 1996 (elevated to chief,<br />
1999)<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2014<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 23<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 1<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 5<br />
Notable decision: Gasior v. <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
General Hospital (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-080-06), which determined that an<br />
employee’s discrimination complaint alleging<br />
wrongful termination under G.L.c.<br />
151B survived <strong>the</strong> death <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> employee.<br />
chusetts Constitution by providing, prospectively,<br />
that “<strong>the</strong> Commonwealth and its political<br />
subdivisions shall define marriage only as<br />
<strong>the</strong> union <strong>of</strong> one man and one woman,” <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff’s challenge must be rejected on <strong>the</strong><br />
ground that <strong>the</strong> proposal is not seeking reversal<br />
<strong>of</strong> a judicial decision.<br />
Schulman v. Attorney General, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-118-06) (17 pages) (Cordy,J.) (Greaney,<br />
J. with whom Ireland, J., joins, concurring)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Spina, J., sitting as single<br />
justice.Gary D.Buseck,Jennifer L.Levi and Mary<br />
L.Bonauto for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;Peter Sacks for <strong>the</strong> defendants;<br />
Jordan W. Lorence, Dale Schowengerdt<br />
and David R.Langdon for <strong>the</strong> interveners;<strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: Martin<br />
M. Fantozzi and Kevin P. O’Flaherty for MassEquality<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Luke Stanton for Robert H.<br />
Quinn and o<strong>the</strong>rs;Robert D.Carroll,Christopher<br />
C. Nee, & Anna-Marie L. Tabor for Scott Harshbarger<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>rs;C.Francis Tynan,pro se (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09684) (July 10, 2006).<br />
Civil rights<br />
Privacy - Workplace -<br />
Videotaping<br />
Where a plaintiff employee <strong>of</strong> a state college<br />
alleges that her right to privacy was violated by<br />
videotape surveillance <strong>of</strong> her workplace in<br />
1995, she is not entitled to relief under statutory<br />
or constitutional law, as <strong>the</strong> plaintiff had<br />
no objectively reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
and <strong>the</strong> defendants are entitled to common-law<br />
immunity.<br />
Nelson v. Salem State College, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-064-06) (21 pages) (Ireland, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Kottmyer,J.,on a motion for<br />
summary judgment. Jeffrey M. Feuer and Lee D.<br />
Goldstein for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; David R.Kerrigan and<br />
Meredith A. Wilson for <strong>the</strong> defendants; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: Wayne<br />
Soini and Jaime DiPaola for American Federation<br />
<strong>of</strong> State, County & Municipal Employees,<br />
Council 93,AFL-CIO; Mark P.Fancher for Maurice<br />
and Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic and<br />
Social Justice; Marc Rotenberg and Marcia H<strong>of</strong>mann<br />
for Electronic Privacy Information Center;<br />
Jeremy Gruber for National Workrights Institute<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09519) (April 13, 2006).<br />
Constitutional<br />
Double jeopardy - Mistrial<br />
Where a defendant moved for dismissal <strong>of</strong><br />
criminal charges following a mistrial,that motion<br />
was properly denied on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
consented to <strong>the</strong> declaration <strong>of</strong> mistrial.<br />
Pellegrine v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-048-06) (3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Cordy, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
Lois J.Martin for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Jason Mohan and<br />
Tracey A.Cusick for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09383) (March 24, 2006).<br />
Same-sex marriage -<br />
Initiative petition<br />
Where a plaintiff challenges <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Attorney General’s certification <strong>of</strong> an initiative<br />
petition that would amend <strong>the</strong> Massa-<br />
Search and seizure -<br />
Buccal swab<br />
Where (1) <strong>the</strong> defendant,a married woman,<br />
was indicted for <strong>the</strong> alleged rapes <strong>of</strong> two<br />
teenaged boys, (2) <strong>the</strong> commonwealth asserted<br />
that <strong>the</strong> sexual intercourse involved resulted<br />
in <strong>the</strong> birth <strong>of</strong> a child by each complainant,<br />
(3) <strong>the</strong> commonwealth filed motions in each<br />
case to compel buccal swabs from <strong>the</strong> defendant,<br />
<strong>the</strong> child and <strong>the</strong> complainant for <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> DNA testing to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
in each case, <strong>the</strong> complainant is <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> child and (4) a Superior Court judge denied<br />
<strong>the</strong> motions,we hold that <strong>the</strong> motion denials<br />
must be vacated and a remand ordered.<br />
Commonwealth v. Draheim (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-113-06) (11 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
Continued on page B6
B6 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 278<br />
Continued from page B5<br />
Case reported by Sosman,J.,sitting as single justice.<br />
Gail M. McKenna for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Joseph F. Krowski Jr. and Jason C. Howard for<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant; Bethany C. Brown submitted a<br />
brief for Kevin Draheim, amicus curiae (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09584) (June 27, 2006).<br />
Consumer protection<br />
G.L.c. 93A - Causation - Loss<br />
Where a defendant rental car company was<br />
awarded summary judgment on <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’<br />
complaint under <strong>the</strong> consumer protection statute<br />
(G.L.c. 93A), <strong>the</strong> judgment should be affirmed<br />
because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’inability to prove any loss<br />
caused by <strong>the</strong> defendant’s failure to comply with<br />
a state statute governing rental agreements.<br />
Hershenow, et al. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car<br />
Company <strong>of</strong> Boston, Inc., et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-008-06) (32 pages) (Marshall, C.J.)<br />
(Cowin, J., concurring) (Greaney, J., joined by<br />
Spina,J.,dissenting) (SJC) Case heard by van Gestel,<br />
J., on motions for judgment on <strong>the</strong> pleadings<br />
and for summary judgment. John Roddy and<br />
Elizabeth A. Ryan for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs; Michael A.<br />
Kahn, <strong>of</strong> California, M. Kay Martin, <strong>of</strong> California,and<br />
John H.Henn for <strong>the</strong> defendants; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: Ben Robbins<br />
and Andrew Grainger for New England<br />
Legal Foundation; Stephen D. Poss and S. Jason<br />
P.Baletsa for The Hertz Corporation and ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09359) (Jan. 17, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 93A - Injury - Rental car<br />
Where a plaintiff filed suit alleging that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant rental car company violated G.L.c.<br />
93A by not displaying in a rental agreement<br />
<strong>the</strong> statutorily required language regarding collision<br />
damage waivers in a manner consistent<br />
with <strong>the</strong> statute, a summary judgment for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant should be affirmed on <strong>the</strong> ground<br />
that <strong>the</strong> plaintiff suffered no injury cognizable<br />
under G.L.c. 93A.<br />
Roberts v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company<br />
<strong>of</strong> Boston,Inc.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-009-06)<br />
(7 pages) (Cowin, J.) (Greaney, J., joined by<br />
Spina, J., concurring) (SJC) Case was heard by<br />
van Gestel, J., on motions for judgment on <strong>the</strong><br />
pleadings and for summary judgment. John<br />
Roddy and Elizabeth A. Ryan for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Michael A.Kahn,<strong>of</strong> California,M.Kay Martin,<br />
<strong>of</strong> California, and John H. Henn for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Ben Robbins and Andrew Grainger for<br />
New England Legal Foundation; Stephen D.Poss<br />
and S. Jason P. Baletsa for The Hertz Corporation<br />
and ano<strong>the</strong>r (Docket No. SJC-09960) (Jan.<br />
17, 2006).<br />
Contract<br />
Breach - Interior design<br />
Where a judge ruled that a defendant engaged<br />
in breach <strong>of</strong> contract by failing to pay<br />
for certain interior design work provided by<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff firm, we hold that this ruling was<br />
supported by <strong>the</strong> record and should be affirmed.<br />
Mark Bombara Interior Design v. Bowler<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-056-06) (14 pages)<br />
(Spina, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Locke, J., in <strong>the</strong><br />
Superior Court. John N. Flanagan for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Colleen C. Cook and Sarah M. Kn<strong>of</strong>f<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No.SJC-09523) (March<br />
30, 2006).<br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
Corporate<br />
Limitations - Tolling<br />
Where (1) a closely held corporation was<br />
dissolved and (2) <strong>the</strong> appellant,one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four<br />
shareholders, was awarded more than her pro<br />
rata share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assets but less than <strong>the</strong> amount<br />
she sought, <strong>the</strong> judgment should be affirmed,<br />
as <strong>the</strong> appellant’s request for a larger share <strong>of</strong><br />
assets was based on time-barred claims <strong>of</strong><br />
wrongdoing by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r shareholders.<br />
Aiello, et al. v. Aiello, et al. (and a companion<br />
case) (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-133-06) (28 pages)<br />
(Cordy, J.) (SJC) Cases heard by van Gestel, J., in<br />
Superior Court. Jeffrey J. Upton for Joy Hyland;<br />
W. Paul Needham and Mark A. Johnson for<br />
RobertAiello;Howard M.Brown for Gerald Aiello<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09626) (Aug. 11, 2006).<br />
Criminal<br />
Annoying or accosting behavior<br />
Where a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> accosting<br />
or annoying a person <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opposite<br />
sex, <strong>the</strong> conviction should be affirmed based<br />
on our conclusion that <strong>the</strong> defendant’s conduct<br />
was <strong>of</strong>fensive and disorderly within <strong>the</strong> meaning<br />
<strong>of</strong> G.L.c. 272, §53.<br />
Commonwealth v. Cahill (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-091-06) (9 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Greco, J., in District Court. Melissa J.<br />
Garand for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Miriam S. Pappas<br />
and Loretta M. Lillios for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09649) (May 19, 2006).<br />
Armed assault with<br />
intent to murder<br />
Where (1) a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
armed assault with intent to murder, (2) he<br />
claimed on appeal that <strong>the</strong> judge erred in not<br />
instructing <strong>the</strong> jury that malice,defined as “absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> justification, excuse and mitigation,”<br />
is an element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fense and (3) he argued<br />
that omission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instruction created a substantial<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice because<br />
his depressed mental state could constitute<br />
mitigation that <strong>the</strong> commonwealth must disprove,<br />
we hold that <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court acted<br />
correctly in rejecting <strong>the</strong> defendant’s appeal.<br />
Commonwealth v. Johnston (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-066-06) (11 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
JUSTICE RODERICK<br />
L. IRELAND<br />
Appointed to SJC: 1997<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2014<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 24<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 2<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 6<br />
Notable decision: Nelson v. Salem State<br />
College, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
064-06), which found that a state college<br />
employee's right to privacy was not violated<br />
by videotape surveillance <strong>of</strong> her<br />
workplace.<br />
Case tried before Ford,J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court.<br />
Daniel Bennett for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Ka<strong>the</strong>rine E.<br />
McMahon for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09606) (April 14, 2006).<br />
Armed assault with intent<br />
to rob - Felony murder<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
armed assault with intent to rob, we hold that<br />
conviction must be vacated because it is duplicative<br />
<strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r conviction for first-degree<br />
murder on a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> felony murder.<br />
Commonwealth v. Rivera (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-148-05) (33 pages) (Marshall, C.J.)<br />
(Cowin, J., concurring in part) (Cordy, J., joined<br />
by Greaney and Ireland, JJ., concurring) (SJC)<br />
Ruth Greenberg for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Loretta M.<br />
Lillios for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
08717) (Sept. 7, 2005).<br />
Armed robbery -<br />
Photographs - Jury instructions<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his convictions<br />
for armed robbery while masked, assault<br />
and battery and assault by means <strong>of</strong> a<br />
dangerous weapon, we hold that <strong>the</strong> convictions<br />
should stand, as <strong>the</strong> trial judge (1) committed<br />
no abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion by admitting into<br />
evidence five photographs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant selected<br />
by <strong>the</strong> victim at an out-<strong>of</strong>-court identification<br />
procedure and (2) did not err in choosing<br />
not to give a jury instruction requested by<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant about confidence and accuracy<br />
in eyewitness identifications.<br />
Commonwealth v.Cruz (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-196-05) (17 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Cases<br />
tried before Haggerty, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court.<br />
Benjamin H. Keehn for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Sheryl F.<br />
Grant for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09499) (Dec. 21, 2005).<br />
Assault and battery by means<br />
<strong>of</strong> dangerous weapon - ‘Castle<br />
law’defense statute<br />
Where a defendant,who was convicted <strong>of</strong> assault<br />
and battery by means <strong>of</strong> a dangerous<br />
weapon, asserts that <strong>the</strong> trial judge acted impermissibly<br />
in not giving a requested “castle law”<br />
defense instruction,we hold that this claim must<br />
be rejected because (1) <strong>the</strong> defendant’s actions<br />
occurred on <strong>the</strong> open porch and outside stairs<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant house and (2) <strong>the</strong> term “dwelling”<br />
in <strong>the</strong> castle law defense statute (G.L.c.278,§8A)<br />
does not encompass such areas.<br />
Commonwealth v. McKinnon (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-042-06) (10 pages) (Ireland, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case tried before McGill, J.,in <strong>the</strong> District<br />
Court. Karen Dean-Smith for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Kimberly Rugo and Melissa J. Conroy for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth (Docket No.SJC-09603) (March<br />
14, 2006).<br />
Attempting to burn building<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his conviction<br />
for attempting to burn a building, we<br />
hold that <strong>the</strong> appeal must fail because no merit<br />
exists to <strong>the</strong> defendant’s claims (1) that his<br />
trial was invalid because <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
proceeded against him by way <strong>of</strong> complaint<br />
even though he never executed a written waiver<br />
<strong>of</strong> his right to indictment and (2) that <strong>the</strong><br />
trial judge erred in denying <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
motion to suppress his confession.<br />
Commonwealth v. Peterson (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-011-06) (11 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Pretrial<br />
suppression motion heard by Curley, J., and<br />
cases tried before him. Beth L. Eisenberg for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; Joseph A. Pieropan for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09482) (Jan. 17, 2006).<br />
Bail - Revocation<br />
Where (1) a defendant was released on bail<br />
in connection with a Superior Court indictment,<br />
(2) <strong>the</strong> bail was later revoked based on<br />
new charges brought against <strong>the</strong> defendant in<br />
District Court and (3) <strong>the</strong> defendant twice requested<br />
in District Court that his bail be reinstated,<strong>the</strong><br />
District Court judges acted correctly<br />
in denying that request on <strong>the</strong> ground that Superior<br />
Court was <strong>the</strong> proper jurisdiction for<br />
any reinstatement order.<br />
Commonwealth v. Cargill (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-172-05) (6 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Questions <strong>of</strong> law reported by Lauriat, J., in Superior<br />
Court. Beth L. Eisenberg for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
John P. Zanini and Joseph M. Ditk<strong>of</strong>f for<br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-09373)<br />
(Nov. 18, 2005).<br />
Bail - Revocation<br />
Where (1) a judge ordered a criminal defendant’s<br />
bail revoked when <strong>the</strong> defendant was<br />
charged with a separate unrelated <strong>of</strong>fense and<br />
(2) a different judge later entered an order vacating<br />
<strong>the</strong> bail revocation order, <strong>the</strong> second<br />
judge acted improperly under <strong>the</strong> bail statute<br />
(G.L.c. 276, §58).<br />
Commonwealth v. Pagan (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-171-05) (19 pages) (Greaney, J.) (Cordy,<br />
J., dissenting in part) (SJC) Case reported by<br />
Cowin, J., sitting as single justice. Dean A. Mazzone<br />
for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Dana Alan Curhan<br />
and Brad Bennion for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09310) (Nov. 18, 2005).<br />
Bail - Revocation<br />
Where a mittimus was issued in District<br />
Court after a defendant’s bail was ordered revoked,<br />
<strong>the</strong> mittimus improperly served to vacate<br />
<strong>the</strong> bail revocation order and accordingly<br />
should be stricken.<br />
Commonwealth v.Hall,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-173-05) (3 pages) (Rescript) Petition<br />
heard by Spina, J., sitting as single justice. Don-
Cite this page 35 MLW 279 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B7<br />
na Jalbert Patalano for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
David M.Lieber for <strong>the</strong> Boston Municipal Court<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09386) (Nov. 18, 2005).<br />
Burglary - Armed<br />
assault in dwelling<br />
Where (1) a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> burglary,armed<br />
assault in a dwelling,armed assault<br />
with intent to murder and assault and battery by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> a dangerous weapon, (2) <strong>the</strong> Appeals<br />
Court later reversed <strong>the</strong> judgments,concluding<br />
that <strong>the</strong>re was insufficient evidence to support<br />
<strong>the</strong> verdicts, and (3) <strong>the</strong> commonwealth <strong>the</strong>reafter<br />
applied successfully for fur<strong>the</strong>r appellate review,<br />
we hold, after careful consideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
transcripts and arguments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties, that,<br />
“although <strong>the</strong> question is a close one, <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
sufficient evidence to support <strong>the</strong> verdicts.”<br />
Commonwealth v.O’Laughlin (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-040-06) (34 pages) (Cowin,J.) (SJC) Motion<br />
to dismiss heard by Curley, J., and <strong>the</strong> cases<br />
were tried before him.Kenneth I.Seiger for <strong>the</strong> defendant;David<br />
F.Capeless for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09587) (March 10, 2006).<br />
Child’s statements<br />
to pediatrician<br />
Where a 6-year-old child made statements to<br />
an emergency room pediatrician disclosing (in<br />
a child’s terms) that she had been anally raped,<br />
we hold that a Superior Court judge erred in allowing<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant’s motion to exclude such<br />
statements from <strong>the</strong> evidence at his trial.<br />
Commonwealth v.DeOliveira (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-103-06) (18 pages) (Greaney, J,) (SJC)<br />
Motion to dismiss heard by Quinlan, J.; application<br />
for leave to prosecute interlocutory appeal allowed<br />
by Sosman, J., in <strong>the</strong> Supreme Judicial<br />
Court for <strong>the</strong> county <strong>of</strong> Suffolk and appeal reported<br />
by her to Appeals Court; matter transferred<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court by <strong>the</strong> Supreme Judicial<br />
Court on its own initiative. Thomas D.<br />
Ralph for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Michael D. Brennan<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Alice Ann Phillips and<br />
Danica Szarvas-Kidd submitted a brief for American<br />
Prosecutors Research Institute,amicus curiae<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09608) (June 19, 2006).<br />
Closing argument -<br />
Child’s sexual knowledge<br />
Where a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> child rape,<br />
<strong>the</strong> convictions must be vacated because <strong>of</strong> prejudicial<br />
error in <strong>the</strong> prosecutor’s closing argument.<br />
Commonwealth v. Beaudry (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-194-05) (17 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
Cases tried before Josephson, J., in Superior<br />
Court.Jane Larmon White on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Judith Ellen Pietras for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No.SJC-09567) (Dec.20,2005).<br />
Community parole supervision<br />
for life - Sex <strong>of</strong>fender<br />
Where community parole supervision for<br />
life (CPSL) has been imposed on a defendant<br />
convicted <strong>of</strong> indecent assault and battery on a<br />
child under 14 years <strong>of</strong> age,<strong>the</strong> defendant must<br />
be resentenced based on <strong>the</strong> unconstitutionality<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CPSL statute.<br />
Commonwealth v.Pagan (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-152-05) (20 pages) (Spina,J.) (SJC) Case tried<br />
before Haggerty,J.,in Superior Court.Mat<strong>the</strong>w V.<br />
Soares for <strong>the</strong> defendant;Hea<strong>the</strong>r E.Hall and Kate<br />
Berrigan MacDougall for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09332) (Sept. 14, 2005).<br />
Competency examination -<br />
Commonwealth’s expert<br />
Where a judge ordered a criminal defendant,<br />
who was found incompetent to stand trial by<br />
a court-appointed expert, to submit to a second<br />
competency examination by an expert <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth’s choosing, this order<br />
should be affirmed,as “<strong>the</strong>re was nei<strong>the</strong>r abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> discretion nor any o<strong>the</strong>r error <strong>of</strong> law.”<br />
Seng v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-190-05) (21 pages) (Marshall, C.J.) (SJC)<br />
Case reported by Cowin, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
Larry R. Tipton for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Loretta<br />
M. Smith for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09467) (Dec. 15, 2005).<br />
Conspiracy to commit larceny<br />
<strong>of</strong> insurance companies<br />
Where (1) computer files were seized from <strong>the</strong><br />
law firm for which a defendant attorney worked<br />
and (2) he was subsequently convicted <strong>of</strong> conspiracy<br />
to commit larceny <strong>of</strong> insurance companies,<br />
we hold that <strong>the</strong> convictions may stand because:<strong>the</strong><br />
defendant lacked standing to challenge<br />
<strong>the</strong> seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> computer files;<strong>the</strong> judge did not<br />
violate <strong>the</strong> defendant’s right to a fair and impartial<br />
jury by rulings <strong>the</strong> judge made during jury selection;and<br />
<strong>the</strong> judge did not abuse his discretion<br />
by refusing to declare a mistrial after a certain improper<br />
remark was uttered by a witness.<br />
Affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v.Bryant (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-139-06) (16 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC) Pretrial<br />
suppression motions were heard by Bohn, J., and<br />
<strong>the</strong> cases were tried before him.William S. Smith<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant; David M. Lieber for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;Bruce<br />
P.Keller and Phillip R.Malone<br />
submitted a brief for National Center for Missing<br />
and Exploited Children,et al.,amici curiae (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09673) (Aug. 25, 2006).<br />
Corporate liability -<br />
Homicide - Motor vehicle<br />
Where a corporation was found guilty <strong>of</strong><br />
homicide by motor vehicle, <strong>the</strong> conviction<br />
should be affirmed based on evidence that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s agent negligently caused <strong>the</strong> death<br />
<strong>of</strong> a police <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-036-06) (38 pages)<br />
(Spina,J.) (Cordy,J.,joined by Marshall,C.J.,and<br />
Cowin,J.,dissenting) (SJC) Case tried before Connon,<br />
J., in Superior Court. Julia K. Holler for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth; Jeffrey T. Karp for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09457) (March 1, 2006).<br />
Discovery - Crime scene<br />
Where a defendant was indicted for rape <strong>of</strong><br />
a child with force in <strong>the</strong> complainant’s home and<br />
assault and battery,we hold that a judge had <strong>the</strong><br />
authority to allow <strong>the</strong> defendant to have his investigator<br />
and attorney inspect, measure and<br />
photograph <strong>the</strong> crime scene but only after <strong>the</strong><br />
owner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject premises was given notice<br />
and an opportunity to be heard.<br />
Commonwealth v. Matis (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-079-06) (8 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
reported by Greaney, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
Judith Ellen Pietras for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Mark A. Tanner for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09480) (May 10, 2006).<br />
Dismissal <strong>of</strong> complaint -<br />
Accord and satisfaction<br />
Where a criminal complaint was dismissed<br />
after <strong>the</strong> defendant and his accuser executed<br />
an accord and satisfaction pursuant to G.L.c.<br />
276,§55,<strong>the</strong> dismissal order should be upheld<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> commonwealth’s challenge to <strong>the</strong><br />
validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> statute.<br />
Commonwealth v. Guzman (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-054-06) (9 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion to dismiss heard by Brant, J., in District<br />
Court. Christopher W. Spring and Loretta M.<br />
Lillios for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Joseph W. Monahan<br />
III for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Daniel I.Smulow for<br />
<strong>the</strong> intervener Attorney General; Nona E.Walker,<br />
for Committee for Public Counsel Services,<br />
amicus curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09459) (March 29, 2006).<br />
Dissemination <strong>of</strong> obscene<br />
matter to minor - Intent<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his conviction<br />
for dissemination <strong>of</strong> matter harmful to<br />
a minor, <strong>the</strong> appeal must fail, as no substantial<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice arose from <strong>the</strong><br />
trial judge’s failure to instruct <strong>the</strong> jury that <strong>the</strong><br />
dissemination must be <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> purposeful,<br />
intentional conduct.<br />
Commonwealth v. Belcher (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-083-06) (8 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
tried before Patrick F. Brady, J., in Superior<br />
Court. Robert F. Shaw Jr. on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Mary E. Lee for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09650) (May 12, 2006).<br />
First-degree murder<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his first-degree<br />
murder conviction, we conclude that <strong>the</strong><br />
appeal must fail because <strong>the</strong> trial judge (1) committed<br />
no reversible error in his evidentiary rulings,<br />
(2) framed adequate jury instructions on<br />
provocation and sudden combat,(3) acted permissibly<br />
in refusing to instruct <strong>the</strong> jury on <strong>the</strong><br />
lesser included <strong>of</strong>fense <strong>of</strong> assault and battery by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> a dangerous weapon (a shod foot),<br />
where <strong>the</strong> evidence did not provide a rational<br />
basis for acquitting <strong>the</strong> defendant <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> crime<br />
charged and convicting him <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lesser included<br />
<strong>of</strong>fense, and (4) also acted permissibly<br />
in deciding that <strong>the</strong> defendant was not entitled<br />
to an instruction requiring specific unanimity,<br />
as to <strong>the</strong> factors set forth in Commonwealth v.<br />
Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216, 227 (1983), in determining<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> alleged murder was committed<br />
with extreme atrocity or cruelty.<br />
Commonwealth v. Pov Hour (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-023-06) (15 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Fishman, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court.Charles K.Stephenson for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Loretta M.Smith for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09365) (Feb. 7, 2006).<br />
First-degree murder -<br />
Jury instructions<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his firstdegree<br />
murder conviction, we conclude that<br />
<strong>the</strong> appeal must fail because no merit exists to<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant’s claim that <strong>the</strong> trial judge’s jury<br />
instruction on malice and intoxication contained<br />
significant errors creating a substantial<br />
likelihood <strong>of</strong> a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice.<br />
Commonwealth v. Oliveira (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-019-06) (18 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
tried before Kane, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court. Eric<br />
S.Brandt for <strong>the</strong> defendant; David B.Mark and<br />
Alison R. Bancr<strong>of</strong>t for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09146) (Jan. 23, 2006).<br />
Grand jury - Spousal privilege<br />
Where a judge permitted a grand jury witness<br />
to refuse to testify based on <strong>the</strong> spousal<br />
privilege (G.L.c. 233, §20), <strong>the</strong> judge’s ruling<br />
must be reversed on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> privilege<br />
does not apply in grand jury proceedings.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> a Grand Jury Subpoena<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-106-06) (17 pages)<br />
(Sosman, J.) (SJC) Case considered by Spina, J.,<br />
sitting as single justice. John P. Zanini for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth; Laurence Cote for <strong>the</strong> respondent<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09714) (June 22, 2006).<br />
Indecent assault and battery -<br />
Duplicative convictions -<br />
Lifetime parole supervision<br />
Where a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> indecent<br />
assault and battery on two children under<br />
<strong>the</strong> age <strong>of</strong> 14,one <strong>of</strong> those convictions must<br />
be vacated based on insufficient evidence.<br />
Commonwealth v. Pillai (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-151-05) (28 pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC) Pretrial<br />
motion for joinder was heard by Connolly,J.;<br />
<strong>the</strong> cases were tried before her as were certain posttrial<br />
motions. James A. Reidy for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;Michael<br />
R.Schneider for <strong>the</strong> defendant on<br />
appeal; Peter Onek, for Committee for Public<br />
Counsel Services,amicus curiae,submitted a brief<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09377) (Sept. 14, 2005).<br />
Continued on page B8
B8 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 280<br />
Continued from page B7<br />
‘Ineffective assistance’claim<br />
Where, after a defendant’s convictions were<br />
affirmed on appeal,he filed a new trial motion<br />
based on an assertion that his trial counsel had<br />
provided ineffective assistance,a motion judge<br />
erred in declining to hold a hearing on, or act<br />
on, <strong>the</strong> defendant’s motion.<br />
Remand ordered for fur<strong>the</strong>r proceedings.<br />
Commonwealth v.Zinser (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-093-06) (9 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Motion for<br />
new trial considered by Lauriat, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court. Donald K. Freyleue for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Loretta M.Lillios for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;John M.<br />
Thompson submitted a brief for <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Criminal Defense <strong>Lawyers</strong>, amicus<br />
curiae;Eric Brandt submitted a brief for Committee<br />
for Public Counsel Services,amicus curiae<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09516) (May 25, 2006).<br />
Jury instructions -<br />
Witness identification -<br />
Prosecutor’s closing<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his first-degree<br />
murder conviction, <strong>the</strong> appeal must fail, as<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant has not demonstrated <strong>the</strong> reversible<br />
error resulted from <strong>the</strong> judge’s jury instructions<br />
or <strong>the</strong> prosecutor’s closing argument.<br />
Commonwealth v. Choeurn (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-062-06) (21 pages) (Marshall, C.J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Fishman, J.; motion to set aside<br />
<strong>the</strong> verdict or, in <strong>the</strong> alternative, for a new trial<br />
heard by him. Ruth Greenberg on appeal for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; Loretta M. Smith for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09363) (April 12, 2006).<br />
Motor vehicle -<br />
Homicide - Life support<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong> motor<br />
vehicle homicide by negligent operation, <strong>the</strong><br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
conviction must be affirmed despite <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
assertion that <strong>the</strong> victim’s decision to be removed<br />
from a ventilator following <strong>the</strong> car accident<br />
relieved <strong>the</strong> defendant from criminal liability.<br />
Commonwealth v. Carlson (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-105-06) (13 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Abdella, J., in District Court.<br />
Sean J. Gallagher on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09632) (June 21, 2006).<br />
Murder - Armed robbery<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his convictions<br />
for murder, armed robbery and related<br />
crimes,we hold that <strong>the</strong> appeal must be rejected<br />
JUSTICE JUDITH<br />
A. COWIN<br />
Appointed to SJC: 1990<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2012<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 23<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 0<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 4<br />
Notable decision: Mason v. Coleman<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-117-06), which<br />
held that a divorced mo<strong>the</strong>r could be enjoined<br />
from moving out <strong>of</strong> state with her<br />
children if such an injunction was necessary<br />
to protect <strong>the</strong> children’s best interests.<br />
because (1) <strong>the</strong> commonwealth met its burden<br />
<strong>of</strong> proving beyond a reasonable doubt that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s waiver <strong>of</strong> his Miranda rights and his<br />
subsequent confession were voluntary, (2) <strong>the</strong><br />
judge committed no abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion in denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant’s request for a jury instruction<br />
concerning <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> an electronic recording<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant’s statement and (3) no reversible<br />
error occurred in <strong>the</strong> judge’s instructions<br />
on reasonable doubt or in <strong>the</strong> instructions on circumstantial<br />
evidence and inferences.<br />
Commonwealth v. O’Brian (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-005-06) (19 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Pretrial<br />
suppression motion heard by Hillman, J.;<br />
cases tried before Mulligan, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court.Michael Malkovich for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Ellyn<br />
H. Lazar-Moore for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09253) (Jan. 10, 2006).<br />
Murder - Confession -<br />
Pretrial publicity<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong> murder<br />
in <strong>the</strong> first degree, <strong>the</strong> appeal must fail because<br />
<strong>the</strong> court below did not err by (1) denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant’s motion to suppress his confession,(2)<br />
refusing to exclude jurors who had been<br />
exposed to any media publicity concerning <strong>the</strong><br />
case and (3) not repeating <strong>the</strong> charge to <strong>the</strong> jury<br />
shortly after <strong>the</strong>y had begun deliberations.<br />
Commonwealth v. Leahy (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-183-05) (30 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Cases<br />
tried before Chin, J., in Superior Court. Ruth<br />
Greenberg on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Robert<br />
C. Thompson for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09380) (Dec. 9, 2005).<br />
Murder - First degree<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
first-degree murder,<strong>the</strong> conviction must be affirmed<br />
because <strong>the</strong> defendant’s trial counsel<br />
was not ineffective in failing to pursue <strong>the</strong> defenses<br />
<strong>of</strong> mental impairment and lack <strong>of</strong> criminal<br />
responsibility.<br />
Commonwealth v.Candelario (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-096-06) (20 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Richard E.Welch III, J.; motion<br />
for a new trial considered by him. Joseph A.<br />
Han<strong>of</strong>ee for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Langevin<br />
Semel for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09495) (June 5, 2006).<br />
Murder - Joint venture<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory - Retrial<br />
Where (1) an indictment alleged murder as<br />
both a principal and a joint venturer, (2) a mis-<br />
Continued on page B10
B10 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 282<br />
Continued from page B8<br />
trial was declared when <strong>the</strong> jury could not reach<br />
a unanimous verdict and (3) <strong>the</strong> defendant now<br />
claims that <strong>the</strong> commonwealth should be barred<br />
from advancing a joint venture <strong>the</strong>ory at a retrial,<strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s argument must be rejected,as<br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to<br />
submit <strong>the</strong> case <strong>the</strong> jury on principal and joint<br />
venture liability on both charges.<br />
Taylor v. Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-102-06) (9 pages) (Greaney,J.) (SJC) Petition<br />
heard by Sosman, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
John D. Fitzpatrick for <strong>the</strong> defendant; John<br />
E. Bradley for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09443) (June 16, 2006).<br />
Murder - Manslaughter -<br />
Reduced verdict<br />
Where a judge reduced a first-degree murder<br />
verdict to involuntary manslaughter, <strong>the</strong> judge<br />
acted properly considering <strong>the</strong> defendant’s role<br />
in a multi-party fatal attack on <strong>the</strong> victim.<br />
Commonwealth v. Chhim (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-129-06) (27 pages) (Cowin,J.) (Spina,J.,<br />
with whom Greaney and Ireland, JJ., join, dissenting)<br />
(SJC) Motion to suppress evidence<br />
heard by Chern<strong>of</strong>f, J.; case tried before Gants, J.,<br />
and motions for postconviction relief and for a<br />
new trial heard by him. Stewart T. Graham Jr.<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant’ Peter A. D’Angelo and Kevin<br />
L. Ryle for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09592) (Aug. 2, 2006).<br />
Murder - Motion for<br />
new trial - Reduced verdict<br />
Where (1) a jury convicted <strong>the</strong> defendant <strong>of</strong><br />
first-degree murder, (2) <strong>the</strong> defendant <strong>the</strong>n<br />
filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule<br />
30(b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Criminal<br />
Procedure and (3) <strong>the</strong> judge who heard <strong>the</strong><br />
motion ordered <strong>the</strong> entry <strong>of</strong> a finding <strong>of</strong> guilty<br />
<strong>of</strong> a lesser <strong>of</strong>fense (second-degree murder),<strong>the</strong><br />
judge did not abuse his authority.<br />
Commonwealth v. Gilbert (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-116-06) (23 pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion for a new trial heard by Gants, J.; motion<br />
for reconsideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
verdict also heard by him. Richard J. Fallon for<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant; Peter D’Angelo for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09512) (July 5, 2006).<br />
Murder - Newly-discovered<br />
evidence - Ineffective assistance<br />
Where a defendant,who was found guilty <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> premeditated murder <strong>of</strong> two <strong>of</strong> his business<br />
associates, appealed and filed a new trial<br />
motion, both <strong>the</strong> appeal and new trial motion<br />
were rightly rejected,as no merit existed to <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s claims (1) that newly-discovered<br />
evidence cast substantial doubt on <strong>the</strong> justice<br />
<strong>of</strong> his convictions and (2) that he was denied<br />
<strong>the</strong> effective assistance <strong>of</strong> counsel.<br />
Commonwealth v. Shuman (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-164-05) (17 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by Botsford,J.,and new trial motion<br />
considered by her. Donald A. Harwood for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; Varsha Kukafka and Susan Corcoran<br />
for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
08364) (Nov. 8, 2005).<br />
Murder - Post-trial discovery<br />
Where a judge denied <strong>the</strong> post-trial discovery<br />
motion <strong>of</strong> a defendant convicted <strong>of</strong> firstdegree<br />
murder, we hold that this constituted<br />
error under <strong>the</strong> circumstances presented by<br />
<strong>the</strong> case and that a remand must be ordered.<br />
Commonwealth v. Daniels (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-178-05) (28 pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC)<br />
Cases tried before Rup, J., and motions for posttrial<br />
discovery and for a new trial were heard by<br />
her. Dana Alan Curhan and Brad P. Bennion<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Jane Davidson Montori for<br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-08805)<br />
(Nov. 23, 2005).<br />
Murder -<br />
Reasonable provocation<br />
Where a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> seconddegree<br />
murder, <strong>the</strong> conviction must be vacated<br />
and a new trial ordered, as <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request<br />
a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter<br />
based on reasonable provocation.<br />
Commonwealth v. Acevedo (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-059-06) (24 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
tried before Grabau, J.; motion for a new trial<br />
heard by him. Leslie W. O’Brien on appeal for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant;Kevin J.Curtin for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09577) (April 4, 2006).<br />
Murder in first degree -<br />
Armed robbery<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his convictions<br />
for first-degree murder and armed<br />
robbery, we hold that <strong>the</strong> convictions should<br />
stand, as (1) <strong>the</strong> trial judge acted permissibly<br />
in submitting <strong>the</strong> case to <strong>the</strong> jury on a <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
<strong>of</strong> extreme atrocity or cruelty, (2) <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
motion to suppress statements he made<br />
to <strong>the</strong> police was rightfully denied,(3) <strong>the</strong> jury<br />
instructions framed contained no reversible<br />
error, (4) no abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion occurred in<br />
<strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> certain autopsy and crime<br />
scene photographs, (5) <strong>the</strong> court acted permissibly<br />
in refusing <strong>the</strong> sever <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
trial from that <strong>of</strong> a coventurer and (6) no merit<br />
exists to <strong>the</strong> defendant’s claims <strong>of</strong> ineffective<br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> counsel and serious error in <strong>the</strong><br />
prosecutor’s opening and closing statements.<br />
We also find no reason today to act pursuant<br />
to G.L.c. 278, §33E, to reduce <strong>the</strong> murder verdict<br />
or order a new trial.Affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v.Anderson (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-157-05) (31 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Cases tried before Rouse, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court. Robert S. Sinsheimer for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Amanda Lovell for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09266) (Sept. 22, 2005).<br />
Murder in first degree - Infant<br />
victim - Cross-examination<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
first-degree murder, <strong>the</strong> conviction should be<br />
affirmed based on this court’s rejection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s argument that his right to crossexamination<br />
was improperly restricted.<br />
Commonwealth v.Podkowka (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-003-06) (15 pages) (Spina,J.) (SJC) Cases<br />
tried before Carhart,J.,in Superior Court.Myles<br />
D. Jacobson on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Elizabeth<br />
Dunphy Farris for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-08788) (Jan. 6, 2006).<br />
Murder in second<br />
degree - Likelihood <strong>of</strong><br />
death - Jury instruction<br />
Where (1) a defendant,convicted <strong>of</strong> seconddegree<br />
murder, moved for a new trial and (2)<br />
an order denying that motion was reversed by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Appeals Court on <strong>the</strong> ground that a jury<br />
instruction on “third prong malice” was erroneous,<br />
<strong>the</strong> conviction should be reinstated, as<br />
<strong>the</strong> error did not result in a substantial risk <strong>of</strong><br />
a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice.<br />
Commonwealth v. Childs (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-191-05) (10 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Motion<br />
for a new trial considered by McEvoy, J., in<br />
Superior Court. Anne M. Thomas for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Arnold R. Rosenfeld and Ashley<br />
Handwork for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09441) (Dec. 15, 2005).<br />
New trial -<br />
Ineffective assistance<br />
Where a Superior Court judge granted a criminal<br />
defendant a new trial,we hold that <strong>the</strong> judge<br />
acted permissibly,as <strong>the</strong> defendant demonstrated<br />
that his trial counsel had provided ineffective<br />
assistance in depriving <strong>the</strong> defendant, through<br />
inattention, <strong>of</strong> two grounds <strong>of</strong> defense: thirdparty<br />
culprit and failure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police to conduct<br />
an adequate investigation.<br />
Commonwealth v. Phinney (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-038-06) (19 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by Sosman, J., sitting as single justice.<br />
David W. Cunis for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
David R. Yannetti for <strong>the</strong> defendant on appeal<br />
only (Docket No. SJC-09435) (March 6, 2006).<br />
New trial - Newly<br />
discovered evidence<br />
Where a defendant convicted <strong>of</strong> murder was<br />
granted a new trial, this was error, as <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
did not present any newly discovered,<br />
admissible evidence.<br />
Commonwealth v. Weichell (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-092-06) (32 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion for a new trial heard by Borenstein, J.,<br />
in Superior Court. Robert C. Cosgrove for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth; Carol A. Fitzsimmons for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant (Docket No.SJC-09556) (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09556) (May 22, 2006).<br />
New trial motion -<br />
Effectiveness <strong>of</strong> counsel -<br />
Recantation<br />
Where a Superior Court judge denied a<br />
murder defendant’s motion for a new trial,<strong>the</strong><br />
judge committed no abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion,as defense<br />
counsel was not ineffective.<br />
Commonwealth v. Hudson (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-087-06) (27 pages) (Cowin,J.) (SJC) Motion<br />
for new trial heard by Lauriat, J., in Superior<br />
Court. Attorneys on appeal were Paul B.<br />
Linn for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth and Greg T. Schubert<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No. SJC-09593)<br />
(May 16, 2006).<br />
Probation - Revocation -<br />
Termination date<br />
Where a defendant’s probation was revoked,<br />
a remand must be ordered because <strong>the</strong> revocation<br />
decision was improperly based in part<br />
on behavior that occurred following <strong>the</strong> end<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> probationary period.<br />
Commonwealth v. Aquino (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-181-05) (8 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC) probation<br />
revocation hearing was held by Tina S.<br />
Page, J., and motions for reconsideration were<br />
heard by her. Douglas J. Beaton for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Dianne M. Dillon for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
David J. Nathanson, for Committee for Public<br />
Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a<br />
brief (Docket No. SJC-09485) (Dec. 2, 2005).<br />
Probation revocation -<br />
‘No contact’condition<br />
Where a probation condition stated that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant was to have “no contact” with minors<br />
under 16 years <strong>of</strong> age, we hold that <strong>the</strong><br />
condition gave him sufficient notice that he<br />
was prohibited from displaying his antique automobile<br />
at a car show attended by minors.<br />
Commonwealth v.Kendrick (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-025-06) (11 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC)<br />
Probation revocation proceeding heard by<br />
Martha A. Scannell Brennan, J., in <strong>the</strong> District<br />
Court. James B. Krasnoo for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Christopher P. Hodgens for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09514) (Feb. 9, 2006).<br />
Prostitution -<br />
Motion to suppress<br />
Where a defendant has appealed his convictions<br />
for owning, or assisting in <strong>the</strong> management<br />
or control <strong>of</strong>,a place for unlawful sexual<br />
intercourse and for keeping a house <strong>of</strong> ill<br />
fame, we conclude that <strong>the</strong> appeal must be rejected<br />
because (1) <strong>the</strong> relevant search warrant<br />
was issued on sufficient probable cause and<br />
properly executed,(2) <strong>the</strong> judge committed no<br />
palpable error in admitting certain “prior bad<br />
act” evidence and certain extrajudicial statements,(3)<br />
<strong>the</strong> judge acted permissibly in denying<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant’s motion for a mistrial, (4)<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant has not proved his “ineffective<br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> counsel” claim, (5) sufficient evidence<br />
was introduced against <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
at trial to justify denials <strong>of</strong> his motions for required<br />
findings <strong>of</strong> not guilty and (6) <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
was not prejudiced by a certain erroneous<br />
jury instruction.<br />
Commonwealth v. Mullane (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-004-06) (25 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Pretrial suppression motion heard by Hamlin,<br />
J.,and cases tried before her.David W.Cunis for<br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth; George Hassett for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09527) (Jan. 9, 2006).<br />
Questioning by DSS<br />
investigator - Right <strong>of</strong> counsel<br />
Where a defendant filed a motion to suppress<br />
an incriminating statement he made to an investigator<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services<br />
who interviewed <strong>the</strong> defendant at jail without<br />
defense counsel present, <strong>the</strong> motion should<br />
have been allowed but <strong>the</strong> error was harmless.<br />
Commonwealth v. Howard (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-067-06) (13 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion to suppress evidence heard by Rup, J.;<br />
cases tried before Agostini,J.,in Superior Court.<br />
Aziz Safar for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Steven Greenbaum<br />
for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-09605)<br />
(April 18, 2006).<br />
Rape - Mental impairment<br />
Where (1) a jury convicted <strong>the</strong> defendant <strong>of</strong><br />
raping a 19-year-old woman suffering from a<br />
brain disorder and resulting mental disability,<br />
(2) <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court set aside <strong>the</strong> verdict,<br />
holding that <strong>the</strong> trial judge had improperly admitted,<br />
through <strong>the</strong> testimony <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> victim’s<br />
mo<strong>the</strong>r,character evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> victim’s trusting<br />
nature and propensity to be victimized,and<br />
(3) <strong>the</strong> commonwealth applied for fur<strong>the</strong>r appellate<br />
review, we decide that <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
conviction should be affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v. Bonds (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-016-06) (23 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
tried before Sikora, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court.<br />
Continued on page B12
B12 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 284<br />
Continued from page B10<br />
Therese M.Wright for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Eric<br />
S. Brandt for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09507) (Jan. 19, 2006).<br />
Reciprocal discovery -<br />
Witness statements<br />
Where a judge in a criminal case ordered <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant to furnish <strong>the</strong> commonwealth with<br />
witness statements in <strong>the</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
or his attorney, including statements<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> commonwealth’s intended witnesses,this<br />
order was valid under <strong>Massachusetts</strong> law and<br />
accordingly should be affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v. Durham (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-043-06) (47 pages) (Greaney,J.) (Marshall,<br />
C.J., joined by Ireland, J., dissenting) (Cordy, J.,<br />
joined by Marshall, C.J., and Ireland, J., dissenting)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Cordy,J.,sitting as single<br />
justice. James L. Sultan and Jonathan P. Harwell<br />
with him) for <strong>the</strong> defendant;Paul B.Linn and<br />
David E. Meier for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae:Mat<strong>the</strong>w<br />
Feinberg and Peter B. Krupp for <strong>the</strong> National Association<br />
<strong>of</strong> Criminal Defense <strong>Lawyers</strong> and ano<strong>the</strong>r;Stephanie<br />
Page and Brownlow M.Speer for<br />
Committee for Public Counsel Services (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09576) (March 14, 2006).<br />
Right to jury trial - Waiver<br />
Where a defendant did not sign a written<br />
waiver <strong>of</strong> his right to trial by jury (as required<br />
by G.L.c. 263, §6 and Mass. R. Crim. P. 19 (a)),<br />
his subsequent conviction by a judge <strong>of</strong> possession<br />
<strong>of</strong> a class B substance was invalid and<br />
must be reversed.<br />
Commonwealth v. Osborne (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-012-06) (9 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by May, J., in <strong>the</strong> District Court. Amanda<br />
Lovell for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Deborah Bates Riordan<br />
and Theodore Riordan for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09448) (Jan. 17, 2006).<br />
Sentencing - Credit -<br />
Home confinement<br />
Where a defendant,having pled guilty,sought<br />
to have his sentence <strong>of</strong>fset by time he spent in<br />
home confinement prior to trial,that request was<br />
correctly denied under G.L.c. 279, §33A.<br />
Commonwealth v.Morasse (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-034-06) (14 pages) (Sosman,J.) (SJC) motion to<br />
correct <strong>the</strong> mittimus heard by Kottmyer, J., in Superior<br />
Court. Paula Finley Mangum for <strong>the</strong> defendant;Marcia<br />
H.Slingerland for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09500) (Feb. 21, 2006).<br />
Sexually dangerous person<br />
Where an individual has appealed a denial <strong>of</strong><br />
his petition for discharge from his continued commitment<br />
as a“sexually dangerous person,”we hold<br />
that his challenge must fail because (1) a judge acted<br />
permissibly in admitting into evidence,under<br />
G.L.c. 123A, §9, certain treatment center reports<br />
containing “totem pole” hearsay, (2) <strong>the</strong> jury instructions<br />
framed contained no reversible error,<br />
(3) sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to<br />
demonstrate <strong>the</strong> need for <strong>the</strong> petitioner’s continued<br />
commitment and (4) a discharge petition filed<br />
under G.L.c. 123A, §9, was not an appropriate<br />
means for <strong>the</strong> petitioner to challenge <strong>the</strong> validity<br />
<strong>of</strong> his original commitment.<br />
Affirmed.<br />
McHoul, petitioner (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
150-05) (27 pages) (Sosman,J.) (Spina,J.,joined<br />
by Cowin, J., concurring in part and dissenting<br />
in part) (SJC) Case tried before Hamlin, J., in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Superior Court. David Hirsch for <strong>the</strong> petitioner;<br />
Mary P. Murray for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
William R. Keating, Tracey A. Cusick and Varsha<br />
Kukafka submitted a brief for <strong>the</strong> District<br />
Attorney for <strong>the</strong> Norfolk District, amicus curiae<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09392) (Sept. 8, 2005).<br />
Wetlands Protection<br />
Act - Indictment<br />
Where a judge dismissed without prejudice<br />
an indictment charging <strong>the</strong> defendants with<br />
violating <strong>the</strong> Wetlands Protection Act in connection<br />
with tree clearing and landfilling activities,<br />
<strong>the</strong> dismissal order must be reversed<br />
because <strong>the</strong> grand jury proceedings were not<br />
impaired.<br />
Commonwealth v. Clemmey (and a companion<br />
case) (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-114-06) (29<br />
pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Motion to dismiss heard<br />
by Connon, J., in Superior Court. Daniel I. Smulow<br />
and Paul Molloy for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Howard M.Cooper for Karl D.Clemmey and ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09463) (June 30, 2006).<br />
Written statement to police -<br />
Manslaughter instruction -<br />
Provocation by third party<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court vacated a Superior<br />
Court judge’s order suppressing a murder<br />
defendant’s written statement to state police<br />
investigators,we affirm <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court’s decision,<br />
as we conclude that <strong>the</strong> statement was<br />
admissible.<br />
Commonwealth v. LeClair (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-006-06) (16 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion to suppress heard by Patrick F. Brady, J.;<br />
case tried before Francis F. Fecteau, J., in Superior<br />
Court.Chauncey B.Wood on appeal for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; David Waterfall for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Debra S. Krupp submitted a brief for<br />
amicus curiae Committee for Public Counsel<br />
Services (Docket No.SJC-09487) (Jan.11,2006).<br />
Damages<br />
Liquidated damages -<br />
Burden <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong><br />
Where a judge refused to enforce <strong>the</strong> liquidated<br />
damages provision in a commercial<br />
lease, this was proper, as defendant lessee satisfied<br />
its burden <strong>of</strong> proving that “<strong>the</strong> liquidated<br />
damages were,from <strong>the</strong> outset,intended by<br />
[<strong>the</strong> plaintiff lessor] to serve as a penalty, and<br />
not as a reasonable assessment <strong>of</strong> damages that<br />
actually might occur.”<br />
We go on to vacate as unwarranted an award<br />
<strong>of</strong> counsel fees for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff.<br />
TAL Financial Corp. v. CSC Consulting, Inc.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-057-06) (19 pages)<br />
(Greaney, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Hinkle, J., in<br />
Superior Court.Leonard M.Singer for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Andrew C. Griesinger for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09518) (March 31, 2006).<br />
Domestic relations<br />
Divorce - Jurisdiction<br />
Where (1) a plaintiff wife and defendant husband<br />
were divorced in <strong>Massachusetts</strong> in 1990,<br />
(2) <strong>the</strong> defendant moved to Tennessee and <strong>the</strong>n<br />
to Utah where he presently resides,(3) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
moved to New York but <strong>the</strong>n returned to<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> to live in 2003, (4) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
subsequently went to court in <strong>Massachusetts</strong> arguing<br />
that <strong>the</strong> defendant had failed to make child<br />
support and medical payments for two years and<br />
(5) a Probate & Family Court judge found <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant in contempt, we hold that <strong>the</strong> contempt<br />
finding should stand as <strong>the</strong> Probate &<br />
Family Court had proper jurisdiction to consider<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s complaint.<br />
Klingel v. Reill (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-029-<br />
06) (11 pages) (Sosman,J.) (SJC) Complaint for<br />
contempt heard by Kopelman, J., in <strong>the</strong> Probate<br />
& Family Court. Frank J. Baldassini for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff; Richard E. Manelis for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09536) (Feb. 14, 2006).<br />
Prenuptial agreement - Alimony<br />
Where a judge struck down as invalid an antenuptial<br />
agreement’s provision precluding <strong>the</strong><br />
wife from receiving alimony,that decision must<br />
be reversed on <strong>the</strong> ground that “<strong>the</strong> agreement<br />
was valid at <strong>the</strong> time it was executed and reasonable<br />
at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> divorce.”<br />
Austin v.Austin (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-195-<br />
05) (15 pages) (Ireland,J.) (Greaney,J.,joined by<br />
Spina, J., dissenting) (SJC) Case heard by Terry,<br />
J., in <strong>the</strong> Probate & Family Court. Jacob M. Atwood,<br />
Mark T. Smith and Erin Moran Shapiro<br />
for Craig B.Austin; Dana Alan Curhan and Brad<br />
P. Bennion for Donna M. Austin (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09492) (Dec. 21, 2005).<br />
Same-sex marriage -<br />
Out-<strong>of</strong>-state residents<br />
Where non-resident same-sex couples<br />
sought a preliminary injunction barring <strong>the</strong><br />
enforcement <strong>of</strong> a state statute under which <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are prohibited from marrying in <strong>Massachusetts</strong>,an<br />
order denying that request must be affirmed<br />
as to <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs who reside in Connecticut,Maine,New<br />
Hampshire and Vermont<br />
because same-sex marriage is prohibited in<br />
those states.<br />
Cote-Whitacre, et al. v. Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Health, et al. (and a companion case) (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-055-06) (91 pages) (Spina,J.,with<br />
whom Cowin and Sosman, JJ., join, concurring)<br />
(Marshall, C.J., with whom Cordy, J., joins and<br />
Greaney, J., joins in part, concurring) (Greaney,<br />
J., concurring) (Ireland, J., dissenting) (SJC) Motions<br />
for injunctive relief and for reconsideration<br />
heard by Ball, J., in Superior Court. Michele E.<br />
Granda and Gary D. Buseck for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
Kevin D.Batt,Anne Robbins and Sarah R.Wunsch<br />
for town clerk <strong>of</strong> Provincetown and o<strong>the</strong>rs;<br />
Peter Sacks for Department <strong>of</strong> Public Health and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs; <strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Kenneth J.Parsigian and Shirley Sperling<br />
Paley for Erwin Chemerinsky and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Kathleen<br />
M. O’Donnell, Mark D. Mason, Martin W.<br />
Healy, Peter F. Zupc<strong>of</strong>ska, Elizabeth M. Duffy,<br />
Darien K.S.Fleming,Eleanor H.Gilbane,Shu-Yi<br />
Oei, Mat<strong>the</strong>w D. Schnall and Corin R. Swift for<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Bar Association and ano<strong>the</strong>r;Anthony<br />
Mirenda, Vickie L. Henry, Sara K. Pildis<br />
and Bradley E. Abruzzi for Asian American Legal<br />
Defense and Education Fund and o<strong>the</strong>rs;Barbara<br />
J. Cox, Jonathan A. Shapiro, Maura T.<br />
Healey, Joseph J. Mueller, Steven P. Lehotsky and<br />
Miranda Hooker for Barbara J. Cox and o<strong>the</strong>rs;<br />
George I. Goverman, pro se; Benjamin W. Bull,<br />
Glen Lavy, Randall Wenger, Dale Schowengerdt<br />
and Philip D.Moran for Raymond Flynn and ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No.SJC-09436) (March 30,2006).<br />
Education<br />
Regional school district -<br />
Amendment<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Commissioner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Education denied approval <strong>of</strong> a proposed<br />
amendment to a regional school district<br />
agreement, a judgment upholding <strong>the</strong> Commissioner’s<br />
decision should be affirmed on <strong>the</strong><br />
ground that <strong>the</strong> Commissioner did not exceed<br />
his authority.<br />
Town <strong>of</strong> Holden v.Wachusett Regional School<br />
District Committee, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-199-05) (20 pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC) case<br />
was heard by Fishman, J., on motions for summary<br />
judgment; entry <strong>of</strong> judgment ordered by<br />
McCann, J., in Superior Court. John O. Mirick<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Jane L. Willoughby for Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Education; Brian W. Riley for town <strong>of</strong><br />
Rutland (Docket No.SJC-09438) (Dec.29,2005).<br />
University police<br />
department - Public records<br />
Where a plaintiff has requested,pursuant to<br />
G.L.c. 66, §10, production <strong>of</strong> certain documents<br />
in <strong>the</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> a defendant university’s<br />
police department, <strong>the</strong> request was<br />
properly denied on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> documents<br />
do not constitute public records.<br />
The Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President and<br />
Fellows <strong>of</strong> Harvard College, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-007-06) (16 pages) (Spina, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Staffier, J., on a motion to<br />
dismiss. Frances S. Cohen, Amber R. Anderson
Cite this page 35 MLW 285 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B13<br />
and Sarah R. Wunsch for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Jeffrey<br />
Swope and Kara A. Krolikowski for <strong>the</strong> defendants;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Adam A. Rowe for James K. Herms and<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r; Leonard M. Singer for The Student<br />
Press Law Center and o<strong>the</strong>rs (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09434) (Jan. 13, 2006).<br />
Elections<br />
Dog racing - Initiative petition<br />
Where plaintiffs have challenged <strong>the</strong> Attorney<br />
General’s certification <strong>of</strong> an initiative petition<br />
which would amend existing laws regarding<br />
animal cruelty and also would outlaw<br />
parimutuel dog racing,<strong>the</strong> certification must be<br />
quashed on <strong>the</strong> ground that petition violates <strong>the</strong><br />
state constitution’s relatedness requirement.<br />
Carney, et al. v. Attorney General, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-120-06) (23 pages) (Marshall,C.J.)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Spina,J.,sitting<br />
as single justice. Joel A. Kozol, Lee H. Kozol and<br />
Marc D.Rie for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;Peter Sacks and Lorraine<br />
A. Goldenberg-Tarrow for <strong>the</strong> defendants;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici curiae:<br />
Thomas R. Kiley for Wonderland Greyhound<br />
Owners Association, Inc., and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Bradley J.<br />
Butwin, Abby F. Rudzin, Samantha L. He<strong>the</strong>rington,&<br />
Joseph D.Keller and Jeffrey D.Hutchins<br />
for Committee to Protect Dogs and ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09706) (July 13, 2006).<br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
Employment<br />
Civil service - Lay<strong>of</strong>f -<br />
Disabled veteran<br />
Where a state agency laid a disabled veteran<br />
<strong>of</strong>f following severe budgetary cuts,we hold<br />
that <strong>the</strong> agency did not contravene <strong>the</strong> statutory<br />
preference accorded disabled veterans.<br />
Having reached this conclusion, we let stand<br />
decisions entered for <strong>the</strong> agency by <strong>the</strong> Civil Service<br />
Commission and a Superior Court judge.<br />
Andrews v. Civil Service Commission, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-075-06) (13 pages)<br />
(Cowin, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Murtagh, J., on a<br />
motion for judgment on <strong>the</strong> pleadings. Jonathan<br />
M. Feigenbaum and Stephanie M. Swinford for<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Juliana deHaan Rice for <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09620) (April 28, 2006).<br />
JUSTICE FRANCIS<br />
X. SPINA<br />
Appointed to SJC: 1999<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2016<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 25<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 2<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 6<br />
Notable decision: Lowery v. Klemm<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-068-06), which<br />
found that a volunteer "swap shop" worker<br />
could not sue her supervisor for sexual<br />
harassment since G.L.c. 214, §1C does<br />
not apply to volunteers.<br />
Civil service - MBTA promotions<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs, seven white male police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers employed by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Bay<br />
Transportation Authority,claim that <strong>the</strong>y were<br />
unlawfully bypassed for promotions to <strong>the</strong><br />
ranks <strong>of</strong> sergeant and lieutenant and that minority<br />
or female candidates were unlawfully<br />
promoted to those positions instead, we conclude<br />
that <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’claim must be rejected.<br />
Brackett, et al. v. Civil Service Commission, et<br />
al.(and a companion case) (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-121-06) (37 pages) (SJC) Motions for judgment<br />
on <strong>the</strong> pleadings heard by Kottmyer,J.,and<br />
Botsford,J.,in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court.Frank J.McGee<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs; Robert L.Quinan Jr.for <strong>the</strong> Human<br />
Resources Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth;<br />
Robert P. Morris for <strong>the</strong> Massachussetts Bay<br />
Transportation Authority; Daniel J. Gleason,<br />
Yolanda T.Howze and Nadine Cohen submitted<br />
a brief for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Association <strong>of</strong> Minority<br />
Law Enforcement Officers, amicus curiae<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09521) (July 14, 2006).<br />
Discrimination claim -<br />
Sexual orientation -<br />
Medical peer review privilege<br />
Where (1) a plaintiff sued his former employer,a<br />
defendant hospital,charging that it discriminated<br />
against him on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> his sexual<br />
orientation and retaliated against him when<br />
he complained about <strong>the</strong> discrimination, (2) a<br />
jury returned a verdict in <strong>the</strong> defendant’s favor<br />
and (3) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff subsequently appealed, we<br />
hold that <strong>the</strong> appeal must be rejected.<br />
Pardo v. The General Hospital Corporation,<br />
et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-021-06) (32 pages)<br />
(Marshall, C.J.) (SJC) Motion to compel discovery<br />
heard by Gershengorn, J., and <strong>the</strong> case was<br />
tried before her.Ellen J.Zucker and Paul R.Cirel<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Frank E. Reardon and James J.<br />
Horgan for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09433) (Jan. 26, 2006).<br />
G.L.c. 151B - Employee’s death<br />
Where (1) a plaintiff died after filing a G.L.c.<br />
151B complaint and (2) <strong>the</strong> defendant’s subsequent<br />
motion to dismiss was denied as to <strong>the</strong><br />
claim for compensatory damages and allowed<br />
to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>the</strong> complaint sought punitive<br />
damages,<strong>the</strong> motion should have been denied<br />
in its entirety.<br />
Gasior v. <strong>Massachusetts</strong> General Hospital<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-080-06) (16 pages) (Marshall,<br />
C.J.) (SJC) Motion to dismiss heard by<br />
MacLeod, J.; question <strong>of</strong> law was reported by her.<br />
Shannon Liss-Riordan for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Frank E.<br />
Reardon and John P. Puleo for <strong>the</strong> defendant; <strong>the</strong><br />
following submitted briefs for amici curiae:Jonathan<br />
J.Margolis and Robert S.Mantell for <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Employment <strong>Lawyers</strong> Association;Beverly I.Ward<br />
for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Commission Against Discrimination<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09517) (May 11, 2006).<br />
Continued on page B14
B14 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 286<br />
Continued from page B13<br />
Handicap discrimination -<br />
Misconduct<br />
Where a plaintiff filed suit alleging discrimination<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> disability (bipolar disorder),judgment<br />
was properly entered for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant employer on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff’s egregious misconduct in <strong>the</strong> workplace<br />
rendered him an unqualified handicapped<br />
person.<br />
Mammone v. President and Fellows <strong>of</strong> Harvard<br />
College (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-081-06)<br />
(47 pages) (Cordy, J.) (Greaney, J., dissenting)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Gants, J., on a motion for<br />
summary judgment; entry <strong>of</strong> judgment dismissing<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s complaint ordered by Brassard,<br />
J., in Superior Court. Betsy L. Ehrenberg<br />
and Rebecca G. Pontikes for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; John<br />
P. Coakley and Richard J. Riley for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Beverly I. Ward and John Lozada for<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Commission Against Discrimination;<br />
Susan Stefan for Center for Public Representation<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>rs (Docket No. SJC-09609)<br />
(May 12, 2006).<br />
Harassment - Third party<br />
Where an employer was held liable for failing<br />
to protect an employee from harassment<br />
by one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> employer’s subcontractors, <strong>the</strong><br />
finding <strong>of</strong> liability must be reversed on <strong>the</strong><br />
ground that <strong>the</strong> employer took reasonable remedial<br />
steps.<br />
Modern Continental/Obayashi v.<strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Commission Against Discrimination,et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-149-05) (33 pages)<br />
(Sosman, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Ball, J., on a<br />
motion for judgment on <strong>the</strong> pleadings. Richard<br />
D. Wayne for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Beverly I. Ward for<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Commission Against Discrimination;<br />
James B. Cox for Whatleigh Edmands;<br />
John D. O’Reilly III, Karl J. Gross and James F.<br />
Grosso, for Associated General Contractors <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong>, Inc., and o<strong>the</strong>rs, amici curiae,<br />
submitted a brief (Docket No.SJC-09356) (Sept.<br />
7, 2005).<br />
MCAD - Emotional<br />
distress - Counsel fees -<br />
Prejudgment interest<br />
Where a Superior Court judge upheld a finding<br />
by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Commission Against<br />
Discrimination that <strong>the</strong> defendant Wakefield<br />
Municipal Gas & Light Department had discriminated<br />
against <strong>the</strong> plaintiff employee on<br />
<strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> age, <strong>the</strong> judgment must be vacated<br />
to <strong>the</strong> extent that it includes emotional distress<br />
damages, as <strong>the</strong>re was insufficient evidence to<br />
support an award <strong>of</strong> such damages.<br />
DeRoche v.<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Commission Against<br />
Discrimination, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
097-06) (27 pages) (Greaney,J.) (SJC) Cases heard<br />
by Hines,J.,on motions for judgment on <strong>the</strong> pleadings;<br />
motion for attorney’s fees and costs heard by<br />
Neel,J.,J.,in Superior Court.Nicholas J.Scobbo Jr.<br />
and Ann Ryan-Small for Wakefield Municipal<br />
Gas & Light Department; Seth H.Hochbaum for<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Beverly I. Ward for <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Commission Against Discrimination; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: Thomas F.<br />
Reilly and Peter Sacks for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
James S. Weliky for National Employment<br />
<strong>Lawyers</strong>’ Association, <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Chapter<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09619) (June 12, 2006).<br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
MEPA - Teachers<br />
Where two plaintiff women teachers filed<br />
suit,claiming that <strong>the</strong> defendant school district<br />
discriminated against <strong>the</strong>m with regard to<br />
salary because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir gender and thus violated<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Equal Pay Act, we hold<br />
that a judge erred in granting <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs relief,<br />
as <strong>the</strong> evidence introduced at trial did not<br />
support <strong>the</strong>ir claim.<br />
Silvestris v.Tantasqua Regional School District<br />
(and a companion case) (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
089-06) (32 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Cases heard<br />
by Carhart, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court. Marie E.<br />
DeLuzio and Karen W.Peters for defendant Tantasqua<br />
Regional School District; Cornelius J.Moriarty<br />
II for plaintiffs Joanne Silvestris and Valerie<br />
A.Goncalves;Danielle Y.Vanderzanden and<br />
Douglass C. Lawrence, on brief, for amicus curiae<br />
Associated Industries <strong>of</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong>;<br />
Thomas F.Reilly,Ca<strong>the</strong>rine C.Ziehl and Zoe Butler-Stark,on<br />
brief,for <strong>the</strong> amicus curiae Attorney<br />
General; Sara Smolik, Robert Mantell and Elizabeth<br />
A. Rodgers, on brief, for <strong>the</strong> amicus curiae<br />
National Employment <strong>Lawyers</strong> Association,<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Chapter (Docket No. SJC-09540)<br />
(May 18, 2006).<br />
Retaliation - Hostile work<br />
environment - Continuing<br />
violation - ‘Cuddyer’<br />
Where a jury found in favor <strong>of</strong> a plaintiff<br />
MBTA employee on claims <strong>of</strong> hostile work environment<br />
and unlawful retaliation, a new trial<br />
with respect to damages must be ordered,as <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant is entitled to a jury instruction regarding<br />
<strong>the</strong> standard set forth in Cuddyer v.Stop<br />
& Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass.521 (2001).<br />
In upholding <strong>the</strong> jury’s liability determination,<br />
we conclude that retaliation claims are<br />
subject to <strong>the</strong> continuing violation doctrine.<br />
Clifton v. <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Bay Transportation<br />
Authority (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-197-05) (21<br />
pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC) Case tried before<br />
Gants, J., in Superior Court. Kevin G. Powers<br />
and Robert S. Mantell for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Walter<br />
M. Foster and Mat<strong>the</strong>w J. Walko for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Marisa Campagna, Theresa Finn-Dever<br />
and James S. Weliky for National Employment<br />
<strong>Lawyers</strong> Association; Paul H. Merry and<br />
Angela Ciccolo for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Employment<br />
<strong>Lawyers</strong> Association & ano<strong>the</strong>r (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09462) (Dec. 21, 2005).<br />
Retaliation - Internal complaints<br />
Where plaintiff employees <strong>of</strong> a defendant<br />
restaurant claim that <strong>the</strong>y were retaliated against<br />
after complaining that <strong>the</strong> defendant was violating<br />
a tip-pooling statute,<strong>the</strong> defendant should<br />
not have been awarded summary judgment,as<br />
G.L.c.149,§148A prohibits employers from retaliating<br />
against employees for making internal<br />
allegations <strong>of</strong> wage violations,even if those employees<br />
never brought <strong>the</strong>ir allegations to <strong>the</strong><br />
attention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General.<br />
Smith,et al.v.Winter Place LLC,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-128-06) (10 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC)<br />
Motion for summary judgment was heard by<br />
Holtz, J.; question <strong>of</strong> law reported by Gants, J., in<br />
Superior Court. Shannon Liss-Riordan for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiffs; Gordon P. Katz for <strong>the</strong> defendants; <strong>the</strong><br />
following submitted briefs for amici curiae: John<br />
E.Coyne and Kevin P.Sweeney for <strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Restaurant Association; Ingrid Nava, Audrey R.<br />
Richardson, Patti A. Prunhuber and Donald J.<br />
Siegel for Greater Boston Legal Services & o<strong>the</strong>rs;<br />
Julia J. Carabilo and Andrea C. Kramer for The<br />
Women’s Bar Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09544) (Aug. 1, 2006).<br />
JUSTICE MARTHA<br />
B. SOSMAN<br />
Appointed to SJC: 2000<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2020<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 7<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 0<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 0<br />
Notable decision: In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Grand Jury Subpoena (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-106-06), which determined that<br />
<strong>the</strong> spousal privilege statute only applied<br />
to trial testimony, not to a murder suspect's<br />
wife who was seeking to avoid testifying<br />
in a grand jury proceeding against<br />
her husband.<br />
Volunteers - Harassment<br />
Where a plaintiff volunteer employee brought<br />
suit under G.L.c. 214, §1C alleging sexual harassment<br />
by a defendant co-worker, <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
was properly awarded summary judgment,<br />
as volunteers are not covered by <strong>the</strong> statute.<br />
Lowery v. Klemm (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
068-06) (15 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case heard<br />
by McLaughlin, J., on a motion for summary<br />
judgment. Lee M. Berger for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Kevin M.Orme for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No.SJC-<br />
09580) (April 21, 2006).<br />
Environmental<br />
Groundwater<br />
discharge permit - Pond<br />
Where plaintiffs challenged a decision by <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant Department <strong>of</strong> Environmental Protection<br />
upholding <strong>the</strong> codefendant Edgartown<br />
Wastewater Commission’s issuance <strong>of</strong> a groundwater<br />
discharge permit for <strong>the</strong> operation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
municipal wastewater treatment plant,we conclude<br />
that <strong>the</strong> DEP’s decision was properly affirmed<br />
in Superior Court, as (1) <strong>the</strong> DEP did<br />
not erroneously interpret <strong>the</strong> applicable regulations<br />
and (2) <strong>the</strong>re was no error in <strong>the</strong> exclusion<br />
<strong>of</strong> certain cross-examination testimony.<br />
Friends and Fishers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Edgartown Great<br />
Pond, Inc., et al. v. Department <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />
Protection, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
095-06) (24 pages) (Ireland,J.) (SJC) Case heard<br />
by Walker, J., on a motion for judgment on <strong>the</strong><br />
pleadings. Douglas H. Wilkins for Friends &<br />
Fishers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Edgartown Great Pond, Inc.;<br />
Michael S.Nuesse for Group <strong>of</strong> Ten Citizens; Siu<br />
Tip Lam for Department <strong>of</strong> Environmental Protection;<br />
Lisa C. Goodheart and Ronald H. Rappaport<br />
for Edgartown Wastewater Commission<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09570) (June 1, 2006).<br />
Evidence<br />
Expert - New trial<br />
Where (1) a jury returned a verdict in favor<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant in a medical malpractice case<br />
and (2) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff later moved for a new trial<br />
on <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory that a defense expert had provided<br />
false and misleading testimony,an order<br />
allowing this motion (and imposing sanctions<br />
on <strong>the</strong> defendant and <strong>the</strong> expert witness) must<br />
be reversed.<br />
Wojcicki v.Caragher (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
119-06) (25 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case tried<br />
before Kottmyer,J.; motion for a new trial heard<br />
by her. William J. Dailey Jr. and John M. Dellea<br />
for Frederick Hochberg; David M. Gould and<br />
Sean E. Capplis for Joan E. Caragher; David W.<br />
White-Lief and Marc L.Breakstone for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09565) (July 11, 2006).<br />
Expert - Standard <strong>of</strong> care -<br />
Medical malpractice<br />
Where a judge awarded a defendant physician<br />
summary judgment in a medical malpractice<br />
case,this judgment should be affirmed<br />
in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ failure to submit expert<br />
evidence on <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> care.<br />
Palandjian, et al. v. Foster (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-033-06) (19 pages) (Spina,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
tried before Zobel,J.,in Superior Court.Kenneth<br />
W. Salinger and Raymond J. Kenney Jr. for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; John B. Flemming, Joseph P. Musacchio<br />
and Camille F. Sarrouf for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09562) (Feb. 21, 2006).<br />
Hearsay - Confrontation -<br />
Probation revocation - ‘Crawford’<br />
Where a judge, relying in part on hearsay<br />
statements contained in a police report, ordered<br />
a defendant’s probation revoked,this order<br />
should be affirmed because <strong>the</strong> right <strong>of</strong><br />
confrontation set out in Crawford v. Washington,<br />
541 U.S. 36 (2004) does not apply to probation<br />
revocation proceedings.<br />
Commonwealth v. Wilcox (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-026-06) (15 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC) Proceeding<br />
for revocation <strong>of</strong> probation heard by Baylor,J.,in<br />
District Court.Thomas J.Iovieno for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant; Michael J. Mark<strong>of</strong>f for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09513) (Feb. 9, 2006).<br />
Hearsay - Probation revocation<br />
Where a judge relied on hearsay statements<br />
in revoking a defendant’s probation,<strong>the</strong>re was<br />
no error, as <strong>the</strong> evidence was reliable.<br />
Affirmed.<br />
Commonwealth v. Nunez (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-027-06) (10 pages) (Cowin,J.) (SJC) Proceeding<br />
for revocation <strong>of</strong> probation heard by<br />
Gailey,J., in District Court.Lisa M.Sheehan for<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant on appeal; Seema Malik Brodie<br />
for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-09460)<br />
(Feb. 9, 2006).<br />
Identification - ‘Showup’<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
assault with intent to rape a child under <strong>the</strong> age<br />
<strong>of</strong> sixteen years, assault with intent to kidnap<br />
and assault and battery,<strong>the</strong> convictions should<br />
be affirmed because <strong>the</strong> defendant has not<br />
shown that <strong>the</strong> one-on-one “showup”identification<br />
by <strong>the</strong> victim was “so unnecessarily suggestive<br />
and conducive to irreparable mistaken<br />
identification” as to deny <strong>the</strong> defendant due<br />
process <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
Commonwealth v. Martin (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-123-06) (56 pages) (Cowin, J.) (Cordy, J.,<br />
with whom Marshall, C.J., and Ireland, J., join,<br />
dissenting) (SJC) Pretrial motion to suppress evidence<br />
heard by Dolan,J.; motion to dismiss heard<br />
by Connon, J.; cases tried before Graham, J., in<br />
Superior Court.J.Thomas Kirkman for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
Edward J. DeAngelo for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
David M. Skeels, for Committee for Public<br />
Counsel Services,amicus curiae,submitted a brief<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09585) (July 19, 2006).<br />
Latent fingerprints<br />
Where a defendant’s motion to exclude fingerprint<br />
evidence was denied,that ruling must<br />
be reversed on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
did not establish a sufficient foundation<br />
for <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> expert evidence regarding<br />
latent fingerprints.<br />
Commonwealth v. Patterson (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-198-05) (44 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Pretrial<br />
motion to suppress evidence heard by Hinkle,J.,in<br />
Superior Court.John H.Cunha Jr.,Helen<br />
Holcomb and Charles Allan Hope for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Donna Jalbert Patalano for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth;<br />
<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for amici<br />
curiae: Robert C. Cosgrove for District Attorney<br />
for <strong>the</strong> Berkshire District and o<strong>the</strong>rs; David M.<br />
Siegel, Stanley Z. Fisher and Daniel Givelber for<br />
New England Innocence Project and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Lisa<br />
J.Steele for National Association <strong>of</strong> Criminal Defense<br />
<strong>Lawyers</strong> and o<strong>the</strong>rs;LaDonna J.Hatton and<br />
Christopher Pohl for Secretary <strong>of</strong> Public Safety<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09478) (Dec. 27, 2005).<br />
Prior bad acts -<br />
Assault and battery<br />
Where a defendant was convicted <strong>of</strong> assault<br />
and battery,<strong>the</strong> conviction must be affirmed be-
Cite this page 35 MLW 287 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B15<br />
cause <strong>the</strong> trial court committed no error by admitting<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant’s prior bad acts.<br />
Commonwealth v. Butler (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-193-05) (13 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Rufo, J., in District Court.<br />
Amanda Lovell and Ca<strong>the</strong>rine N.Tucker for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth; Daniel F. de Abreu for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No.SJC-09551) (Dec.20,2005).<br />
Psychiatric testimony -<br />
Sex <strong>of</strong>fender<br />
Where a defendant, charged with being a<br />
sexually dangerous person, was denied an opportunity<br />
to present psychiatric evidence based<br />
on personal interviews with his own psychiatric<br />
expert, this was not a due process violation<br />
given that <strong>the</strong> defendant exercised his right<br />
to refuse to be interviewed by two court-appointed<br />
qualified examiners.<br />
Commonwealth v. Connors (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-124-06) (12 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Pretrial motion to present certain psychiatric evidence<br />
heard by Burnes, J.; case tried before her.<br />
Edward B. Fogarty for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Sheryl F.<br />
Grant for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09610) (July 19, 2006).<br />
chusetts Public Interest Research Group (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09622) (Aug. 23, 2006).<br />
Excess coverage - Insurers<br />
Insolvency Fund - Exhaustion<br />
Where (1) a plaintiff manufacturer, facing<br />
potential liability for asbestos-related injuries,<br />
filed a complaint seeking a declaration that its<br />
excess insurance providers had a duty to defend<br />
and indemnify and (2) a judge ruled that,<br />
with respect to a series <strong>of</strong> policies issued by a<br />
now-insolvent insurance company,<strong>the</strong> ‘trigger<br />
<strong>of</strong> coverage’ is bodily injury occurring during<br />
<strong>the</strong> policy period, we conclude that, as to two<br />
<strong>of</strong> those policies, coverage is triggered by asbestos<br />
exposure or inhalation,and not by bodily<br />
injury, during <strong>the</strong> policy period.<br />
We go on to hold that <strong>the</strong> judge was correct<br />
in ruling that: <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Insurers Insolvency<br />
Fund’s liability for <strong>the</strong> excess insurer’s<br />
duties to defend and indemnify is not triggered<br />
until <strong>the</strong> policyholder has exhausted <strong>the</strong><br />
limits <strong>of</strong> all applicable solvent excess policies;<br />
and that a settlement agreement with a solvent<br />
carrier for less than <strong>the</strong> policy’s stated limits<br />
does not constitute exhaustion.<br />
A.W. Chesterton Co. v. <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Insurers<br />
Insolvency Fund (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
184-05) (37 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC) Martin<br />
F. Gaynor III and Nicholas D. Stellakis for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff; Joseph C.Tanski,Gregory P.Deschenes,<br />
Gregg A. Rubenstein and Christine Vargas<br />
Suth<strong>of</strong>f for <strong>the</strong> defendant. The following submitted<br />
briefs for amici curiae: Laura A.Foggan,<br />
Alicia C. Ritter and Michael R. Coppock for<br />
Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association;<br />
David L.Elkind,Elizabeth A.Sherwin,John<br />
A. Gibbons, Martin C. Pentz, Karen L. Crocker,<br />
Michael P. Angelini and Vincent F. O’Rourke Jr.<br />
for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Electric Company and ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09498) (Dec. 12, 2005).<br />
PIP - Jury trial<br />
Where (1) a plaintiff medical provider filed<br />
suit seeking payment for services under <strong>the</strong><br />
personal injury protection (PIP) program and<br />
(2) <strong>the</strong> defendant insurance company requested<br />
a jury trial, that request was correctly<br />
granted under G.L.c. 90, §34M.<br />
Boehm v.The Premier Insurance Co.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-082-06) (6 pages) (Marshall, C.J.)<br />
(SJC) Case tried before Dowling, J., in District<br />
Court. Francis A. Gaimari for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Christopher M. Mountain for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09638) (May 12, 2006).<br />
Pollution exclusion -<br />
Oil truck - ‘In transit’<br />
Where (1) oil leaked from a plaintiff policyholder’s<br />
delivery truck while it was parked<br />
overnight, (2) <strong>the</strong> policyholder sought coverage<br />
under a commercial automobile insurance<br />
policy issued by <strong>the</strong> defendant insurance company<br />
and (3) <strong>the</strong> insurer denied coverage on<br />
<strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> a pollution exclusion clause referring<br />
to pollutants ‘stored ... upon <strong>the</strong> covered<br />
auto,’ <strong>the</strong> insurance company acted unjustifiably<br />
in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> policy impos-<br />
Continued on page B16<br />
Rape - ‘First complaint’<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
child rape and indecent assault and battery,<strong>the</strong><br />
convictions should be affirmed, as <strong>the</strong> trial<br />
judge committed no error in admitting “fresh<br />
complaint” evidence.<br />
Commonwealth v.King (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-158-05) (47 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC) Cases<br />
tried before Patrick F. Brady, J., in Superior<br />
Court. Robert O. Berger III for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Mary E. Lee for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: Lisa J.<br />
Steele for The National Association <strong>of</strong> Criminal<br />
Defense <strong>Lawyers</strong>; William J. Meade for District<br />
Attorney for <strong>the</strong> Bristol District and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Djuna<br />
E.Perkins for Jane Doe,Inc.,and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Jane<br />
Larmon White for Committee for Public Counsel<br />
Services; Wendy J. Murphy for Victim Advocacy<br />
and Research Group (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09417) (Sept. 29, 2005).<br />
Unavailable witnesses -<br />
Out-<strong>of</strong>-court statements<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
assault and battery, <strong>the</strong> judgment must be vacated<br />
and a new trial ordered,as <strong>the</strong> judge erred<br />
in permitting police witnesses to testify as to<br />
statements made at <strong>the</strong> scene by two eyewitnesses<br />
(<strong>the</strong> defendant’s son and daughter) who<br />
were unavailable at trial.<br />
Commonwealth v.Rodriguez (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-143-05) (3 pages) (Rescript) Appealed<br />
from a decision by Brennan,J.,in District Court.<br />
Melissa P.White Ellis for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Ca<strong>the</strong>rine<br />
Langevin Semel and Jana L.DiNatale for <strong>the</strong><br />
commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-09352).<br />
Insurance<br />
Assigned risk plan -<br />
High-risk drivers<br />
Where a judge struck down a decision by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Insurance to approve an<br />
assigned risk plan for high-risk drivers unable<br />
to obtain private automobile insurance in <strong>the</strong><br />
voluntary market, <strong>the</strong> judge’s ruling must be<br />
reversed, as <strong>the</strong> Commission’s plan is not prohibited<br />
by G.L.c. 175, §113H.<br />
Commerce Insurance Co., et al. v. Commissioner<br />
<strong>of</strong> Insurance, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-138-06) (23 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Gants,J.,on a motion for judgment on<br />
<strong>the</strong> pleadings.Thomas A.Barnico and Elisabeth<br />
Ditomassi for Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Insurance; Nelson<br />
G. Apjohn, James A. Ermilio and Daniel P.<br />
Olohan for Commerce Insurance Company;<br />
Stephen J.D’Amato for Center for Insurance Research;<br />
Roberta R. Fitzpatrick for Arbella Mutual<br />
Insurance Company; <strong>the</strong> following submitted<br />
briefs for amici curiae: Edward J. Donahue<br />
Jr., Luke A. Dillon III, Peter S. Rice, Mark A.<br />
Walsh, Elizabeth R. Cerda and Peter T. Robertson<br />
for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Insurance Federation,<br />
Inc., and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Joshua R. Kratka for Massa-
B16 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 288<br />
Continued from page B15<br />
es on <strong>the</strong> insurer a duty to indemnify <strong>the</strong> policyholder<br />
for <strong>the</strong> release <strong>of</strong> any pollutants while<br />
being transported or o<strong>the</strong>rwise in <strong>the</strong> course<br />
<strong>of</strong> transit.<br />
City Fuel Corp. v. National Fire Insurance<br />
Company <strong>of</strong> Hartford (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
078-06) (9 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case heard<br />
by Walker, J., on a motion for summary judgment.<br />
Owen Gallagher and Kara Larzelere for<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Michael F.Aylward and Gareth W.<br />
Notis for <strong>the</strong> defendant (Docket No.SJC-09623)<br />
(May 10, 2006).<br />
Termination <strong>of</strong> auto policy -<br />
Notice - Business records<br />
Where a summary judgment was entered in<br />
favor <strong>of</strong> a plaintiff who was struck by a vehicle<br />
owned and operated by <strong>the</strong> defendant’s insured,<br />
<strong>the</strong> judgment must be vacated and <strong>the</strong><br />
matter remanded in light <strong>of</strong> a material issue as<br />
to whe<strong>the</strong>r notice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant’s pre-accident<br />
termination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> insured’s policy had<br />
been sent to <strong>the</strong> registrar <strong>of</strong> motor vehicles.<br />
McLaughlin v. CGU Insurance Co. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-017-06) (9 pages) (Cordy, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Borenstein, J., on motions<br />
for summary judgment. Clyde K. Hanyen, Jr.,<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Eric S. Kupperstein for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff (Docket No.SJC-09528) (Jan.19,2006).<br />
Uninsured motorist benefits<br />
Where (1) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff insured operator <strong>of</strong><br />
a motor vehicle was injured as <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
combined negligence <strong>of</strong> two tortfeasors, one<br />
<strong>of</strong> whom was insured under an automobile liability<br />
insurance policy and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> whom<br />
was an unidentified hit and run driver, (2) <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff has received indemnity payment from<br />
<strong>the</strong> insurance carrier for <strong>the</strong> identified tortfeasor<br />
and (3) <strong>the</strong> just-mentioned payment has<br />
not been sufficient to compensate <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
fully for his damages, we hold that uninsured<br />
motorist benefits are available to <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
under G.L.c. 175, §113L and <strong>the</strong> standard<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> automobile insurance policy.<br />
Gabriel v. The Premier Insurance Company<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-015-<br />
06) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Case heard by<br />
Rup, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court. James M. Walsh<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Peter E. Heppner for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09454) (Jan. 18, 2006).<br />
Jurisdiction<br />
Joint bank account -<br />
Death <strong>of</strong> depositor<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> plaintiff administrators <strong>of</strong> a decedent’s<br />
estate brought suit seeking <strong>the</strong> return <strong>of</strong><br />
money taken by <strong>the</strong> defendant from a California<br />
bank account held jointly by <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
and <strong>the</strong> decedent, judgment should have entered<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendant based on California law.<br />
Barboza, et al. v. McLeod (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-137-06) (14 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by LaStaiti,J.,in <strong>the</strong> Probate & Family<br />
Court. David Berman for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Donald H. Barnes Jr. for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09596) (Aug. 18, 2006).<br />
Jury and jurors<br />
Impartiality - Racial prejudice<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
heroin and cocaine charges, a new trial must<br />
be ordered because <strong>the</strong> judge’s questioning <strong>of</strong><br />
a juror was insufficient to dispel doubts concerning<br />
<strong>the</strong> juror’s impartiality.<br />
Commonwealth v.Clark (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-077-06) (17 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Cases<br />
tried before McDonald, J., in Superior Court.<br />
Angela G. Lehman on appeal for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Bethany C.Lynch for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09522) (May 8, 2006).<br />
Jury trial - Land Court - Waiver<br />
Where a Land Court judge granted a defendant<br />
a jury trial, this was error in light <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> defendant failed to comply<br />
with <strong>the</strong> statutory requirements for exercising<br />
its right to a jury trial.<br />
PROFILES OF THE JUSTICES<br />
Senior Housing Properties Trust, et al. v.<br />
HealthSouth Corp. (and a companion case)<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-122-06) (22 pages)<br />
(Marshall, C.J.) (SJC) Demand for jury trial<br />
heard by Long, J., in Land Court. Paul B. Galvani<br />
and Jane E.Willis for Senior Housing Properties<br />
Trust & ano<strong>the</strong>r.Philip Y.Brown and Brian<br />
R. Birke for HRPT Properties Trust; Gary R.<br />
Greenberg and Jonathan D. Cohen for Greenery<br />
Securities Corporation and ano<strong>the</strong>r (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09594) (July 17, 2006).<br />
Juvenile<br />
Dangerousness -<br />
Continuance - Bail<br />
Where a Juvenile Court judge released a juvenile<br />
on bail after ordering a continuance <strong>of</strong><br />
a dangerousness hearing, this was beyond <strong>the</strong><br />
judge’s discretion.<br />
Commonwealth v. Lester L., a juvenile<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-160-05) (17 pages)<br />
(Cowin, J.) (SJC) Case reported by Spina, J., sitting<br />
as single justice.Jane Davidson Montori for<br />
<strong>the</strong> commonwealth; Erica E. Cushna for <strong>the</strong> juvenile<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09427) (Oct. 7, 2005).<br />
Receiving stolen vehicle -<br />
Possession<br />
Where a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent<br />
based on a finding <strong>of</strong> guilt on a charge <strong>of</strong> receiving<br />
a stolen motor vehicle, <strong>the</strong> juvenile’s motion<br />
for a required finding <strong>of</strong> not guilty should have<br />
been allowed on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> evidence did<br />
not prove <strong>the</strong> possession element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fense.<br />
Commonwealth v. Darnell D., a juvenile<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-200-05) (7 pages)<br />
(Cowin, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Lauranzano, J.,<br />
in Juvenile Court.Jennifer H.O’Brien for <strong>the</strong> juvenile;<br />
Kenneth E. Steinfield for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No.SJC-09491) (Dec.29,2005).<br />
JUSTICE ROBERT<br />
J. CORDY<br />
Appointed to SJC: 2001<br />
Will reach retirement age: 2019<br />
Majority opinions written this year: 25<br />
Dissenting opinions written this year: 3<br />
Total dissenting votes cast: 3<br />
Notable decision: Humphrey v. Byron, et<br />
al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-125-06),<br />
which held that commercial landlords,<br />
unlike residential landlords, owe no duty<br />
<strong>of</strong> care to non-tenants legitimately on<br />
leased premises.<br />
Labor<br />
Police union - Racial pr<strong>of</strong>iling -<br />
Officer identification<br />
Where a union sought a preliminary injunction<br />
to prevent <strong>the</strong> collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
identification numbers in connection with <strong>the</strong><br />
Boston police department’s ga<strong>the</strong>ring <strong>of</strong> data<br />
concerning traffic stops,a single justice’s order<br />
staying <strong>the</strong> information collection should be<br />
vacated, as <strong>of</strong>ficer identification numbers are<br />
required to be collected by state statute.<br />
Boston Police Patrolmen’sAssociation,Inc.v.Police<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Boston, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-024-06) (11 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC) Motion<br />
for preliminary injunction heard by Connors,<br />
J.,in Superior Court.Bryan C.Decker and John M.<br />
Becker for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Amy E.Ambarik for police<br />
department <strong>of</strong> Boston; Susan M. Prosnitz and<br />
Christopher Pohl for Secretary <strong>of</strong> Public Safety;<strong>the</strong><br />
following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Cristina<br />
Beamud for city <strong>of</strong> Boston and o<strong>the</strong>rs; John M.<br />
Collins for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Chiefs <strong>of</strong> Police Association,<br />
Inc.; John Reinstein for American Civil Liberties<br />
Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> and o<strong>the</strong>rs (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09621) (Feb. 8, 2006).<br />
Prevailing wages -<br />
Truck drivers<br />
Where (1) <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Labor and Industries<br />
established a policy in 1993 requiring<br />
that truck drivers on public construction contracts<br />
be paid prevailing wages for <strong>the</strong> time<br />
spent hauling bituminous concrete to and from<br />
construction sites and (2) <strong>the</strong> deputy director<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> division <strong>of</strong> occupational safety in 2001<br />
rescinded <strong>the</strong> policy, <strong>the</strong> deputy director’s action<br />
should be upheld because <strong>the</strong> plaintiff labor<br />
organizations have not met <strong>the</strong>ir burden<br />
to show that <strong>the</strong> decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> deputy director<br />
was arbitrary or capricious and because we<br />
grant due deference to <strong>the</strong> deputy director’s interpretation<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prevailing wage statute.<br />
Teamsters Joint Council No. 10, et al. v. Director<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Labor and Workforce<br />
Development, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-107-06) (17 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Riley, J., on motions for judgment on<br />
<strong>the</strong> pleadings. Mark D. Nielsen and Kathryn B.<br />
Palmer for Department <strong>of</strong> Labor and ano<strong>the</strong>r;<br />
John D. O’Reilly III for Palmer Paving Corporation<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>rs; Paul F. Kelly for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’<br />
Richard D. Wayne and Willard Krasnow, for<br />
Utility Contractors Association <strong>of</strong> New England,<br />
Inc., and o<strong>the</strong>rs, amici curiae, submitted a brief<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09505) (June 23, 2006).<br />
Landlord and tenant<br />
Commercial lease -<br />
Duty to third parties<br />
Where a commercial landlord was sued by<br />
a tenant’s employee who was injured in a fall<br />
down a stairway, <strong>the</strong> defendant was correctly<br />
awarded summary judgment on <strong>the</strong> ground<br />
that <strong>the</strong> defendant — unlike a residential landlord<br />
— owed no duty <strong>of</strong> care to non-tenants<br />
legitimately on <strong>the</strong> leased premises.<br />
Humphrey v.Byron,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.<br />
10-125-06) (15 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC) Case heard<br />
by Troy, J., on a motion for summary judgment.<br />
Joseph C. Borsellino and Neil D. Schnurbach for<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Thomas R. Murphy for <strong>the</strong> defendants;<strong>the</strong><br />
following submitted briefs for amici curiae:Christopher<br />
A.Kenney and Edward S.Cheng<br />
for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Defense <strong>Lawyers</strong> Association;<br />
Andrew R.Gainger,Martin J.Newhouse and Ben<br />
Robbins for New England Legal Foundation and<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r; Patrick T. Jones and J. Michael Conley<br />
for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Academy <strong>of</strong> Trial Attorneys<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09449) (July 21, 2006).<br />
Licenses and permits<br />
Medical license<br />
revocation - Misconduct<br />
with adolescent patients<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> defendant Board <strong>of</strong> Registration<br />
in Medicine has revoked a plaintiff physician’s<br />
license to practice medicine, we hold that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant’s decision should be affirmed as it is<br />
supported by substantial evidence that <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff committed repeated acts <strong>of</strong> misconduct<br />
with adolescent female patients.<br />
Ingalls v. Board <strong>of</strong> Registration in Medicine<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-165-05) (19 pages) (Ireland,J.)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Spina,J.,sitting as<br />
Single Justice. Eve Slattery and Paul Cirel for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff; William W. Porter for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09403) (Nov. 14, 2005).<br />
Municipal<br />
Urban renewal plan - Change<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> defendant city in 2002 altered a<br />
1980 urban renewal plan so as to remove all light<br />
industrial uses from <strong>the</strong> redevelopment area,<br />
<strong>the</strong> city’s decision should be upheld,as <strong>the</strong> 2002<br />
change to <strong>the</strong> plan was not a “new plan”requiring<br />
new or renewed findings <strong>of</strong> eligibility.<br />
Central Steel Supply Co., Inc., et al. v. Planning<br />
Board <strong>of</strong> Somerville, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-126-06) (17 pages) (Ireland, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by Kern,J.,on motions for judgment<br />
on <strong>the</strong> pleadings. James D. Masterman for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiffs; Annapurna Balakrishna for Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Housing and Community Development;<br />
Anne M.Thomas for Somerville Redevelopment<br />
Authority; David P. Shapiro for Planning Board<br />
<strong>of</strong> Somerville, submitted a brief.; <strong>the</strong> following<br />
submitted briefs for amici curiae: William H.<br />
Mellor, Clark M. Neily III, Dana Berliner and<br />
Jorge Schmidt for The Institute for Justice and<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r; Michael E. Malamut and Martin J.<br />
Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09545) (July 24, 2006).<br />
Negligence<br />
Firearms - Homeowner’s<br />
liability - Unsupervised access<br />
Where (1) a defendant permitted <strong>the</strong> man<br />
with whom she lived to keep a sizeable gun collection<br />
in <strong>the</strong> basement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant’s<br />
house,(2) <strong>the</strong> man’s son took one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se guns<br />
and shot a police <strong>of</strong>ficer to death and (3) a lawsuit<br />
was <strong>the</strong>n brought against <strong>the</strong> defendant,<br />
an award <strong>of</strong> summary judgment for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
must be affirmed as to counts <strong>of</strong> public<br />
nuisance and strict liability but reversed as<br />
to a negligence count.<br />
Jupin, et al. v. Kask (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
115-06) (29 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case heard<br />
by Fecteau, J., on a motion for summary judgment.<br />
Douglas L. Fox for Joanne D. Jupin; June<br />
A. Harris for <strong>the</strong> defendant; John Mizhii and C.<br />
Deborah Phillips, for <strong>the</strong> Town <strong>of</strong> Westminster,<br />
were present but did not argue; Dennis A.Henigan,<br />
Elizabeth S. Haile, Daniel R. Vice, Daniel<br />
C. Swanson and Clifford J. Zatz, for The Brady<br />
Center to Prevent Gun Violence and o<strong>the</strong>rs,amici<br />
curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09538) (June 30, 2006).<br />
Personal injury -<br />
Transportation authority<br />
Where a jury rendered a special verdict finding<br />
<strong>the</strong> defendant transportation authority liable<br />
for reckless conduct in connection with a<br />
plaintiff’s loss <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> a limb, we conclude<br />
that <strong>the</strong> evidence did not support a finding <strong>of</strong><br />
reckless conduct and <strong>the</strong>refore that <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
is entitled to judgment notwithstanding<br />
<strong>the</strong> verdict.<br />
Montes v. <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Bay Transportation<br />
Authority (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-039-06) (10<br />
pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC) Case tried before Lopez,<br />
J., and a motion for judgment notwithstanding<br />
<strong>the</strong> verdict was heard by her. Joseph G. Abromovitz<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Jeremiah P. Sullivan Jr.<br />
and Ann Marie Johnnene for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09568) (March 9, 2006).<br />
Recklessness -<br />
Operation <strong>of</strong> train<br />
Where a judge dismissed a complaint brought<br />
on behalf <strong>of</strong> a teenager who was struck and killed<br />
by a train, <strong>the</strong> dismissal order must be vacated<br />
with respect to claims <strong>of</strong> recklessness.<br />
Boyd v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.,<br />
et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-065-06) (21 pages)
Cite this page 35 MLW 289 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B17<br />
(Spina,J.) (SJC) Motion for summary judgment<br />
heard by Kottmyer, J.; motion for reconsideration<br />
heard by her. John B. Flemming and Joseph<br />
P. Musacchio for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; David T. Mitrou<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket No. SJC-09543)<br />
(April 14, 2006).<br />
Statute <strong>of</strong> repose -<br />
Continuing treatment<br />
Where a defendant physician moved for<br />
summary judgment with respect to a malpractice<br />
claim brought by <strong>the</strong> plaintiff,<strong>the</strong> motion<br />
should have been allowed,as (1) <strong>the</strong> complaint<br />
was untimely under <strong>the</strong> statute <strong>of</strong> repose<br />
and (2) <strong>the</strong> repose period cannot be tolled under<br />
<strong>the</strong> continuing treatment doctrine.<br />
Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-175-05) (12 pages) (Cowin, J.)<br />
(SJC) Motion for summary judgment heard by<br />
Fishman,J.; application for leave to prosecute an<br />
interlocutory appeal allowed by Green, J., in <strong>the</strong><br />
Appeals Court. Barry D. Lang for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Edward T. Hinchey and Stacey E. Morris for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendants; Carl Valvo and Kenneth W. Terrel,<br />
for Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Liability Foundation, Ltd., amicus<br />
curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09455) (Nov. 21, 2005).<br />
Statute <strong>of</strong> repose -<br />
Tolling - Misrepresentation<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ medical malpractice<br />
complaint was dismissed based on <strong>the</strong> statute<br />
<strong>of</strong> repose,<strong>the</strong> judgment should be affirmed despite<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ assertion that fraudulent<br />
concealment on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
served to toll <strong>the</strong> repose period.<br />
Joslyn, et al. v. Chang, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-174-05) (13 pages) (Cowin,J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Connolly, J., on a motion for summary<br />
judgment. Charlotte E. Glinka for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
George E. Wakeman Jr. for <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09539) (Nov. 21, 2005).<br />
Parent and child<br />
Custody - Foreign judgment<br />
Where a mo<strong>the</strong>r living in <strong>Massachusetts</strong> has<br />
been ordered to return to Trinidad with her<br />
child, that order should be affirmed in light <strong>of</strong><br />
a Trinidad court order prohibiting her from<br />
taking <strong>the</strong> child out <strong>of</strong> that country.<br />
Khan v.Samini (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-032-<br />
06) (17 pages) (Greaney,J.) (SJC) Case heard by<br />
Gould, J., in Probate & Family Court. Michael<br />
J. Traft for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r; Robert J. Rivers Jr. and<br />
Tannaz N. Saponaro for <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09644) (Feb. 15, 2006).<br />
Life support withdrawal -<br />
Stepfa<strong>the</strong>r’s standing<br />
Where a judge has issued an order to withdraw<br />
life support for a critically injured child<br />
in <strong>the</strong> custody <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services,<br />
<strong>the</strong> order should be affirmed, as <strong>the</strong><br />
child’s stepfa<strong>the</strong>r has no standing to challenge<br />
<strong>the</strong> judge’s findings and order.<br />
Care and Protection <strong>of</strong> Sharlene (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-010-06) (30 pages) (Greaney, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Cowin, J., sitting as single<br />
justice. John J. Egan, John M. Thompson and Edward<br />
J.McDonough Jr.for <strong>the</strong> petitioner;Virginia<br />
A.Peel for Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services;Lisa M.<br />
Kling for Sharlene; Pamela J. Szmyt Hastings, for<br />
<strong>the</strong> siblings <strong>of</strong> Sharlene,amici curiae,submitted a<br />
brief (Docket No. SJC-09629) (Jan. 17, 2006).<br />
Out-<strong>of</strong>-state removal<br />
Where a divorced mo<strong>the</strong>r challenges a court<br />
order enjoining her from moving out-<strong>of</strong>-state<br />
with her children,<strong>the</strong> order should be affirmed<br />
based on <strong>the</strong> best interests <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> children.<br />
Mason v. Coleman (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-<br />
117-06) (17 pages) (Cowin, J.) (SJC) Complaint<br />
for modification heard by Dilday, J., in <strong>the</strong> Probate<br />
& Family Court. John T. Ouderkirk Jr. and<br />
Carol A. Phinney for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Adam A.<br />
Rowe for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; <strong>the</strong> following submitted<br />
briefs for amici curiae: Pauline Quirion, Fern<br />
Frolin,Warren Fitzgerald and Martin Healy for<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong> Bar Association; Daniel B.Hogan<br />
for Fa<strong>the</strong>rs and Families, Inc. (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09625) (July 10, 2006).<br />
Temporary custody - Hearing<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services<br />
filed a petition for temporary custody <strong>of</strong> a couple’s<br />
children,<strong>the</strong> petition was sufficient under<br />
G.L.c. 119, §24 and thus <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s request<br />
for dismissal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petition must be denied.<br />
Care and Protection <strong>of</strong> Lillian,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-170-05) (15 pages) (Ireland, J.)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by Ireland, J., sitting as single<br />
justice. Mark A. Papirio and Michael T.<br />
Spadea for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r; Pamela J. Szmyt Hastings<br />
and Henry Porter for <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r;Virginia A.<br />
Peel for Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services; Dorothy<br />
Meyer Storrow for Karen and o<strong>the</strong>rs; John T.<br />
Ouderkirk Jr.for Lillian,was present but did not<br />
argue (Docket No. SJC-09535) (Nov. 18, 2005).<br />
Unfitness - Temporary nature<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court vacated a Juvenile<br />
Court judge’s order terminating a mo<strong>the</strong>r’s<br />
parental rights, <strong>the</strong> order should be reinstated<br />
because, contrary to <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court’s conclusion,<strong>the</strong><br />
judge did make necessary findings<br />
regarding whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s unfitness was<br />
temporary.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> Elena (and two companion cases)<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-022-06) (17 pages)<br />
(Spina, J.) (SJC) Cases heard by Corbett, J., in<br />
Juvenile Court.Brian Pariser for Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Social Services; Garry M. O’Brien for <strong>the</strong> children;<br />
Robert J. McCarthy Jr. for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09586) (Jan. 31, 2006).<br />
Prisons<br />
Prison uprising - Building<br />
destruction while unlawfully<br />
assembled - Hostage taking<br />
Where defendants,in connection with an inmate<br />
uprising at <strong>the</strong> Bristol County House <strong>of</strong><br />
Correction,were convicted <strong>of</strong> building destruction<br />
while unlawfully assembled, those convictions<br />
must be reversed because <strong>the</strong> controlling<br />
statute only refers to conduct in a city or town.<br />
Commonwealth v. Spearin (and eight companion<br />
cases) (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-073-06)<br />
(16 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC) Cases tried before<br />
Connon, J., in Superior Court. Alan D. Campbell<br />
for Gualter M.Camara; Joseph J.Mazza for<br />
Randall Spearin; David B. Mark for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09524).<br />
Religious freedom -<br />
Muslim faith - Meals<br />
Where a plaintiff prison inmate brought suit<br />
claiming that he was unlawfully prevented<br />
from practicing his Islamic faith by reason <strong>of</strong><br />
prison policies and regulations regarding meals<br />
and <strong>the</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> personal and religious<br />
items, a judgment for <strong>the</strong> defendants must be<br />
vacated as to <strong>the</strong> food claim and affirmed as to<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r claims.<br />
Rasheed v. Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Correction, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-061-06) (23 pages)<br />
(Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Sanders, J., on<br />
motions for summary judgment. Neil Mc-<br />
Continued on page B18
B18 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | September 25, 2006 Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998 www.masslawyersweekly.com | Cite this page 35 MLW 290<br />
Continued from page B17<br />
Garaghan, Jennifer L. Stewart and Carol E.<br />
Head for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Richard C.McFarland for<br />
Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Correction; Derek L.Gaubatz,<br />
Lisa Pirozzolo and Steven P. Lehotsky, for Becket<br />
Fund for Religious Liberty and ano<strong>the</strong>r, amici<br />
curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09617) (April 7, 2006).<br />
Religious freedom -<br />
Muslim faith<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> defendant Department <strong>of</strong> Correction<br />
and two <strong>of</strong> its codefendant <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
were awarded summary judgment in a suit<br />
brought by a plaintiff Muslim inmate who alleged<br />
infringement <strong>of</strong> his right to <strong>the</strong> free exercise<br />
<strong>of</strong> his religion, <strong>the</strong> judgment should be<br />
affirmed because “<strong>the</strong> record reflects that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendants attempted to accommodate <strong>the</strong> religious<br />
needs and requests <strong>of</strong> inmates practicing<br />
<strong>the</strong> Muslim faith, within bounds that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
reasonably concluded were lawful and necessary<br />
to maintain <strong>the</strong> secure and efficient operation<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prison.”<br />
Ahmad v. Department <strong>of</strong> Correction, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-060-06) (14 pages)<br />
(Cordy,J.) (SJC) Case heard by Kern,J.,on a motion<br />
for summary judgment. Neil McGaraghan<br />
and Ka<strong>the</strong>rine W. Grearson for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Richard C.McFarland for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09477) (April 7, 2006).<br />
Transfer <strong>of</strong> pretrial detainees<br />
Where a Superior Court judge,at <strong>the</strong> request<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Worcester district attorney, ordered <strong>the</strong><br />
transfer <strong>of</strong> pretrial detainees from a county jail<br />
to a state correctional facility, this order was<br />
impermissible under G.L.c. 276, §52A and<br />
must accordingly be vacated.<br />
Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Correction v.Superior Court<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Trial Court for <strong>the</strong> County<br />
<strong>of</strong> Worcester,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-035-<br />
06) (8 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case reported by<br />
Cordy, J., sitting as single justice. William D.<br />
Saltzman for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Ellyn H.Lazar-Moore<br />
for <strong>the</strong> District Attorney for <strong>the</strong> Middle District<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09634) (Feb. 27, 2006).<br />
Products liability<br />
‘Sophisticated user’defense<br />
Where a jury returned a verdict for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
bungee cord manufacturer in a product<br />
liability case,<strong>the</strong> verdict should be affirmed,<br />
as <strong>the</strong> trial judge corrected gave <strong>the</strong> jury a “sophisticated<br />
user” instruction.<br />
Carrel v.National Cord & Braid Corp.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-135-06) (30 pages) (Cordy,J.) (SJC)<br />
Case tried before Brady,J.,in Superior Court.Edward<br />
T. Dangel III for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Ralph C. Sullivan<br />
and Richard W. Jensen for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09541) (Aug. 15, 2006).<br />
Real property<br />
Historic district - Exemption<br />
Where an ordinance was enacted in 1972<br />
exempting from <strong>the</strong> Springfield Historical<br />
Commission’s authority all property owned by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Springfield Library and Museum Association<br />
and Roman Catholic Bishop <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Diocese<br />
<strong>of</strong> Springfield,we hold that <strong>the</strong> exemption<br />
applies only to property acquired by <strong>the</strong> time<br />
<strong>the</strong> ordinance was enacted.<br />
Springfield Preservation Trust, Inc. v. Springfield<br />
Library and Museums Association, Inc., et<br />
al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-134-06) (33 pages)<br />
(Sosman, J.) (Ireland, J., with whom Spina and<br />
Cowin,JJ.,join,concurring in part and dissenting<br />
in part) (SJC) Case heard by McDonald,J.,on motions<br />
for summary judgment and a motion for<br />
partial summary judgment. Mark D. Mason for<br />
Springfield Library & Museums Association,Inc.;<br />
John J.Egan for Roman Catholic Bishop <strong>of</strong> Springfield;<br />
John Egnal and Terry Scott Nagel for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiff (Docket No.SJC-09600) (Aug.14,2006).<br />
Implied easement<br />
Where (1) plaintiffs,who own lots in an Oak<br />
Bluffs subdivision,sought a judgment that four<br />
parcels <strong>of</strong> subdivision land designated as parks<br />
are burdened with an easement in <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’<br />
favor and (2) a Land Court judge rejected<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ request, we conclude that <strong>the</strong><br />
judge erred, as evidence indicates that an implied<br />
easement exists with respect to <strong>the</strong> parks.<br />
Reagan,et al.v.Brissey,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-058-06) (16 pages) (Greaney, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by Scheier, J., on motions for summary<br />
judgment. Daniel C. Perry for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
Ronald H. Rappaport for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
town <strong>of</strong> Oak Bluffs; Kenneth L. Kimmel for defendant<br />
Louise Brissey, et al. (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09630) (April 4, 2006).<br />
Restrictions -<br />
Specificity - Extension<br />
Where a plaintiff trust filed suit claiming to<br />
be a beneficiary <strong>of</strong> a restriction on <strong>the</strong> defendants’<br />
land, a declaratory judgment in <strong>the</strong> defendants’<br />
favor must be affirmed because (1)<br />
<strong>the</strong> restriction does not specifically mention<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> plaintiff nor its land and (2) <strong>the</strong> restriction<br />
was not lawfully extended beyond its<br />
specified duration.<br />
Brear v.Fagan,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
104-06) (16 pages) (Sosman, J.) (SJC) Case<br />
heard by Lombardi, J., in Land Court. Donald<br />
K. Freyleue for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Michael P. McCarron<br />
for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket No. SJC-09657)<br />
(June 19, 2006).<br />
Title dispute -<br />
Civil rights violation<br />
Where a title dispute arose between <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
and defendants over a triangular parcel located<br />
between <strong>the</strong>ir Marshfield properties, we<br />
hold that a judge acted permissibly on <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
in ruling (1) that an escrow agreement<br />
concerning transfer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parcel in question<br />
from <strong>the</strong> plaintiff to <strong>the</strong> defendants was enforceable<br />
and (2) that delivery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />
deed effectively conveyed title to <strong>the</strong> defendants.<br />
Haufler,trustee,v.Zotos,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-063-06) (29 pages) (Marshall,<br />
C.J.) (SJC) Case heard by Hely, J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior<br />
Court. J. Gavin Cockfield for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;<br />
Robert E. Kelley for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09502) (April 12, 2006).<br />
Retirement<br />
Criminal convictions - Forfeiture<br />
Where a clerk-magistrate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Boston Juvenile<br />
Court has been convicted <strong>of</strong> criminal<br />
<strong>of</strong>fenses, he has forfeited his entitlement to a<br />
retirement allowance as a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
employees’ retirement system.<br />
State Board <strong>of</strong> Retirement v. Bulger, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-037-06) (17 pages)<br />
(Spina, J.) (SJC) Case reported by Sosman, J., sitting<br />
as single justice.Grace H.Lee,Nicola Favovito<br />
and Rehana Thomas for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Paul T.<br />
Hynes and Ca<strong>the</strong>rine A.Highet for John P.Bulger<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09494) (March 6, 2006).<br />
Public employee -<br />
Forfeiture vote<br />
Where (1) <strong>the</strong> plaintiff State Board <strong>of</strong> Retirement<br />
voted to implement <strong>the</strong> pension forfeiture<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> G.L.c. 32, §15(4), against a defendant<br />
former state representative who had been<br />
convicted in federal court <strong>of</strong> mail fraud, wire<br />
fraud,interstate travel to commit bribery and conspiracy<br />
to commit those crimes and (2) a state<br />
district court judge subsequently ruled that <strong>the</strong><br />
vote was time-barred, we hold that <strong>the</strong> judge<br />
erred, as pension forfeiture proceedings under<br />
§15(4) are not subject to any statute <strong>of</strong> limitations.<br />
State Board <strong>of</strong> Retirement,et al.v.Woodward,<br />
et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-084-06) (15 pages)<br />
(Spina, J.) (SJC) Case reported by Spina, J., sitting<br />
as single justice. Peter Sacks for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;<br />
Edward J. McCormick II and Elizabeth<br />
Maitland for defendant Francis Woodward<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09575) (May 15, 2006).<br />
Search and seizure<br />
Drug-sniffing dog - Police stop<br />
Where a defendant has been convicted <strong>of</strong><br />
cocaine trafficking, <strong>the</strong> conviction should be<br />
affirmed, as <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> a drug-sniffing dog to<br />
detect cocaine in <strong>the</strong> defendant’s car, after <strong>the</strong><br />
car had been pulled over by <strong>the</strong> police,was not<br />
unconstitutional.<br />
Commonwealth v.Feyenord (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-146-05) (35 pages) (Cordy, J.) (Greaney,<br />
J., concurring) (Marshall, C.J., joined by<br />
Ireland, J., dissenting) (SJC) Pretrial motion to<br />
suppress evidence was heard by Hillman,J.; case<br />
tried before him. Michael J. Traft for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
Michelle R. King for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09410) (Sept. 2, 2005).<br />
Unexcused absence - Waiver<br />
Where a narcotics defendant failed to appear<br />
at <strong>the</strong> scheduled hearing on his suppression<br />
motion, a judge acted improperly in ruling<br />
<strong>the</strong> motion automatically waived.<br />
Having said this, we direct that <strong>the</strong> judge’s<br />
order be vacated and <strong>the</strong> case remanded for a<br />
hearing on <strong>the</strong> motion.<br />
We go on today to rule that it would have<br />
been within <strong>the</strong> judge’s discretion in <strong>the</strong> present<br />
case to find that <strong>the</strong> defendant had waived<br />
his right to be present at <strong>the</strong> suppression hearing<br />
and to conduct <strong>the</strong> hearing without him.<br />
Robinson v.Commonwealth (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-166-05) (16 pages) (Spina, J.) (SJC)<br />
Case was reported by Cowin, J., sitting as Single<br />
Justice.James S.Murphy for <strong>the</strong> defendant; Carolyn<br />
A. Burbine for <strong>the</strong> commonwealth (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09425) (Nov. 14, 2005).<br />
Securities<br />
IPO - Broker’s liability -<br />
Reliance damages - G.L.c. 93A<br />
Where plaintiffs filed suit alleging that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
lost $12 million when <strong>the</strong> defendant brokerage<br />
firm failed to allocate shares to <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs<br />
in connection with a company’s initial<br />
public <strong>of</strong>fering,a judge committed no error in<br />
awarding <strong>the</strong> defendant summary judgment<br />
on <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’ contract claim, as <strong>the</strong> parties’<br />
oral agreement contained an implicit condition<br />
precedent that was not met.<br />
We go on to affirm <strong>the</strong> judge’s decision to<br />
award <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs reliance damages on a misrepresentation<br />
claim plus treble damages and<br />
counsel fees on a G.L.c. 93A count.<br />
Twin Fires Investment, LLC, et al. v. Morgan<br />
Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-179-05) (32 pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC)<br />
Case heard by Gants,J.,in Superior Court.Robert<br />
D.Friedman,Susan E.Stenger and Andrew F.Caplan<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;William Pratt,Eric F.Leon,<br />
David I. Horowitz (<strong>of</strong> New York), John R. Snyder<br />
and Carol E.Head for <strong>the</strong> defendants (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09406) (Nov. 30, 2005).<br />
Taxation<br />
Real estate -<br />
Exemption - Veterans -<br />
Residency requirement<br />
Where a state law, which grants certain disabled<br />
veterans a partial real estate tax exemption,<br />
contains a residency requirement limiting<br />
<strong>the</strong> exemption to veterans who have<br />
resided in <strong>Massachusetts</strong> “for five consecutive<br />
years next prior to date <strong>of</strong> filing for exemptions,”we<br />
hold that <strong>the</strong> residency requirement<br />
does not violate (1) <strong>the</strong> equal protection and<br />
privileges and immunities clauses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fourteenth<br />
Amendment to <strong>the</strong> U.S.Constitution or<br />
(2) Part 1,article 6 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Declaration <strong>of</strong> Rights<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Constitution.<br />
Sylvester v. Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Revenue, et al.<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-167-05) (16 pages)<br />
(Greaney, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Hines, J., on<br />
motions for summary judgment. Joel Z. Eigerman<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Thomas A. Barnico and<br />
Daniel J. Hammond for <strong>the</strong> defendant Commissioner<br />
<strong>of</strong> Revenue; Bryan R. LeBlanc for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant town <strong>of</strong> Danvers (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09486) (Nov. 16, 2005).<br />
Tort<br />
Limitations - Sexual<br />
misconduct - Fiduciary duty<br />
Where a plaintiff filed suit alleging that <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant counsellor breached his fiduciary<br />
duty by engaging in a sexual relationship with<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff, a judgment for <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
should be affirmed based on <strong>the</strong> three-year<br />
statute <strong>of</strong> limitations.<br />
Doe v. Harbor Schools, Inc., et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-041-06) (26 pages) (Marshall,<br />
C.J.) (SJC) Case heard by Grasso, J., on motions<br />
for summary judgment. Michael D.Riseberg and<br />
Brian R. Birke for Harbor Schools, Inc.; Richard<br />
J.Fallon for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No.SJC-09566)<br />
(March 14, 2006).<br />
Nuisance<br />
Where a defendant (1) placed along <strong>the</strong> borderline<br />
separating his property from that <strong>of</strong> a<br />
plaintiff neighbor construction debris and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
items,including portable toilets and an <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
trailer,(2) <strong>of</strong>ten landed a helicopter near <strong>the</strong> borderline<br />
and (3) held youth parties <strong>of</strong> 150-200<br />
people on his property, we hold that <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
engaged in activities on his property creating<br />
or maintaining unreasonable aes<strong>the</strong>tic conditions<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff neighbor and that such<br />
actions were actionable as a private nuisance.<br />
Rattigan, trustee, et al. v. Wile, individually<br />
and as trustee (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-020-06)<br />
(21 pages) (Cowin,J.) (SJC) Case heard by Staffier,<br />
J., in <strong>the</strong> Superior Court. Sander A. Rikleen<br />
and John J. Griffin Jr. for <strong>the</strong> defendant; John<br />
Connolly Jr. and Kevin P. Geaney for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09479) (Jan. 25, 2006).<br />
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act -<br />
Consent - ‘Good faith’<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs allege that, in connection<br />
with <strong>the</strong>ir attempt to donate <strong>the</strong> tissues <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir deceased son for transplantation,<strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
(<strong>the</strong> New England Organ Bank and<br />
New England Eye & Tissue Bank) violated <strong>the</strong><br />
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, an award <strong>of</strong><br />
summary judgment for <strong>the</strong> defendants should<br />
be affirmed, as <strong>the</strong> statute’s “good faith” provision<br />
precludes liability with respect to <strong>the</strong> sole<br />
instance <strong>of</strong> statutory noncompliance identified<br />
by <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs — a failure by <strong>the</strong> defendants’<br />
agent to make a voice recording <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiffs’ consent by telephone to organ and<br />
tissue donation.<br />
Carey, et al. v. New England Organ Bank, et<br />
al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-045-06) (24 pages)<br />
(Cowin, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Lowy, J., on a<br />
motion for summary judgment. Roy F. Gelineau<br />
and Anthony Kline for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs; Pamela S.<br />
Gilman and Andrew R. Weiner for New England<br />
Organ Bank; Brian Sullivan, for New England<br />
Eye & Tissue Transplant Bank and ano<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
was present but did not argue (Docket No.<br />
SJC-09504) (March 15, 2006).<br />
Wrongful death - Cigarettes<br />
Where a Superior Court judge dismissed a<br />
wrongful death action which (1) was brought<br />
against a cigarette manufacturer and (2) was<br />
predicated on breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> warranty <strong>of</strong> merchantability,we<br />
hold that <strong>the</strong> dismissal was improper<br />
and reverse it.<br />
Haglund,executrix,v.Philip Morris Incorporated<br />
(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-088-06) (22<br />
pages) (Marshall, C.J.) (SJC) Motion to strike<br />
heard by Kern, J., and entry <strong>of</strong> judgment <strong>of</strong> dismissal<br />
ordered by her. Stephen R. Fine and<br />
Charles M. Healey III for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff; Paul E.<br />
Nemser and Roberto M. Braceras for <strong>the</strong> defendant;<br />
David R. Geiger, Ashley A. Weaver and<br />
Jonathan M. Harrison, on brief, for amicus curiae<br />
Products Liability Advisory Council, Inc.;<br />
Edward L. Sweda Jr., on brief, for amicus curiae<br />
Tobacco Control Resource Center,Inc.(Docket<br />
No. SJC-09483) (May 18, 2006).<br />
Unemployment<br />
compensation<br />
Taxation - Religious exemption<br />
Where a plaintiff claims that he was wrongfully<br />
denied unemployment benefits, his appeal<br />
must fail on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> employer,<br />
a religious school, is not subject to <strong>the</strong> state<br />
unemployment tax statute.<br />
Bleich v. Maimonides School, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-101-06) (15 pages) (Marshall,C.J.)<br />
(SJC) Case heard by Zaleski, J., in District Court.
Cite this page 35 MLW 291 | www.masslawyersweekly.com<br />
Subscribe Today - Call 1-800-451-9998<br />
September 25, 2006 | <strong>Massachusetts</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> | B19<br />
Michael Magerer for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff;Michael R.Coppock<br />
for Maimonides School; James J. Arguin for<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> Unemployment Assistance (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09520) (June 16, 2006).<br />
Wills and trusts<br />
Bank accounts - Estate<br />
property<br />
Where an administratrix seeks a judgment<br />
declaring that <strong>the</strong> testatrix’s estate includes <strong>the</strong><br />
funds in two <strong>Massachusetts</strong> bank accounts,<strong>the</strong><br />
complaint should be dismissed without prejudice<br />
because <strong>the</strong> requested relief appears not<br />
to be necessary.<br />
Florio v.Florio,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-<br />
147-05) (5 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) M. David<br />
Blake and Carolyn Martello for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09414) (Sept. 2, 2005).<br />
‘GRATs’- Reformation<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> settlor <strong>of</strong> “grantor retained annuity<br />
trusts”seeks reformation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trusts in light<br />
<strong>of</strong> a 2003 U.S. Tax Court decision, <strong>the</strong> reformation<br />
request should be granted in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> settlor’s<br />
intent concerning her estate tax liability.<br />
Freedman, et al. v. Freedman, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-155-05) (4 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision by Greaney, J.,<br />
sitting as single justice.Morris Robinson and Peter<br />
W. KortKamp, for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs, submitted a<br />
brief (Docket No. SJC-09475) (Sept. 20, 2005).<br />
Reformation -<br />
Generation-skipping tax<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> trustee and settlors <strong>of</strong> an irrevocable<br />
trust seek reformation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trust,<strong>the</strong> reformation<br />
should be allowed so as to carry out <strong>the</strong><br />
settlors’intentions regarding tax consequences.<br />
Inderieden, et al. v. Downs, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong><br />
<strong>Weekly</strong> No. 10-156-05) (3 pages) (Rescript)<br />
(SJC) Case reported by LaPointe, J., <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Probate<br />
& Family Court. Mark S. Gold submitted<br />
a brief for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs (Docket No.SJC-09481)<br />
(Sept. 21, 2005).<br />
Reformation - Settlors’intent<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> settlors, trustees and beneficiaries<br />
seek reformation <strong>of</strong> an irrevocable trust,<strong>the</strong><br />
request should be granted based on evidence<br />
that,because <strong>of</strong> scrivener’s errors,<strong>the</strong> trust document<br />
does not reflect <strong>the</strong> settlors’ intent.<br />
Ryan, et al. v. Ryan, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-100-06) (3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Case<br />
reported by Kagan, J., in <strong>the</strong> Probate & Family<br />
Court. Virginia Ann Brophy, for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff,<br />
submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-09653)<br />
(June 16, 2006).<br />
Reformation <strong>of</strong> trust - Taxes<br />
Where a trustee <strong>of</strong> a revocable family trust<br />
seeks reformation, that request should be<br />
granted in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> settlor’s intentions regarding<br />
estate tax liability.<br />
Grassian v. Grassian, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No. 10-162-05) (3 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Case<br />
reserved and reported by Spina, J.,sitting as single<br />
justice. Ann P. Hochberg, Neil L. Cohen and<br />
J. James Park for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09423) (Oct. 14, 2005).<br />
Trust reformation<br />
Where reformation has been sought <strong>of</strong> a<br />
qualified personal residence trust,we conclude<br />
that reformation should be allowed in order to<br />
effectuate <strong>the</strong> settlor’s intent.<br />
Van Riper v.Van Riper, et al. (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-153-05) (2 pages) (Rescript) (SJC) Case<br />
reserved and reported by Ireland, J., sitting as<br />
single justice.Domenic P.Aiello submitted a brief<br />
for <strong>the</strong> plaintiff (Docket No. SJC-09506) (Sept.<br />
14, 2005).<br />
Workers’ compensation<br />
Benefit calculation -<br />
‘Average weekly wages’<br />
Where “average weekly wages” must be<br />
determined for a union worker who has<br />
been injured on an entirely union public<br />
works project and is seeking workers’ compensation<br />
benefits, we hold that <strong>the</strong> plain<br />
language <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> applicable statutes [G.L.c.<br />
152, §1(1) and G.L.c. 149, §§26 and 27] requires<br />
that “employer payments into health<br />
and welfare plans, pension plans and supplemental<br />
unemployment benefits (fringe<br />
benefits)” be included in determining <strong>the</strong><br />
employee’s average weekly wages.<br />
William McCarthy’s Case (<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong><br />
No.10-177-05) (30 pages) (Ireland,J.) (Sosman,<br />
J., joined by Marshall, C.J., and Cordy, J., concurring)<br />
(SJC) Appealed from a decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board.Myles W.<br />
McDonough and Mark H. Lik<strong>of</strong>f for <strong>the</strong> insurer;<br />
Michael C. Akashian for <strong>the</strong> employee; Timothy<br />
Wilton submitted a brief for John Fleming,<br />
et al., amici curiae; Karen S. Hambleton submitted<br />
a brief for <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Academy <strong>of</strong> Trial<br />
Attorneys, amicus curiae (Docket No. SJC-<br />
09421) (Nov. 23, 2004).<br />
Jurisdiction -<br />
Suit under G.L.c. 93A<br />
Where plaintiffs initiated suit under G.L.c.<br />
93A,claiming alleged violations <strong>of</strong> G.L.c.176D<br />
by <strong>the</strong> defendants in <strong>the</strong>ir handling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiffs’ claims for workers’ compensation<br />
benefits,a Superior Court judge acted correctly<br />
in dismissing <strong>the</strong> suit due to a lack <strong>of</strong> subject<br />
matter jurisdiction.<br />
Fleming,et al.v.National Union Fire Insurance<br />
Company,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-176-05)<br />
(15 pages) (Spina,J.) (SJC) Case heard by Troy,J.,<br />
on a motion to dismiss. Timothy Wilton for <strong>the</strong><br />
plaintiffs;Myles W.McDonough for <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
(Docket No. SJC-09415) (Nov. 23, 2005).<br />
Zoning<br />
Standing - Diminution in value<br />
Where <strong>the</strong> Appeals Court concluded that<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff abutters had standing to challenge<br />
<strong>the</strong> issuance <strong>of</strong> a comprehensive permit for <strong>the</strong><br />
construction <strong>of</strong> affordable housing, this was<br />
error,as <strong>the</strong> diminution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs’property<br />
values is insufficient to establish standing<br />
under G.L.c. 40B.<br />
Standerwick,et al.v.Zoning Board <strong>of</strong> Appeals <strong>of</strong><br />
Andover,et al.(<strong>Lawyers</strong> <strong>Weekly</strong> No.10-099-06) (26<br />
pages) (Marshall,C.J.) (SJC) Case heard by Whitehead,J.,on<br />
a motion for summary judgment.Kevin<br />
P. O’Flaherty for Avalon at St. Clare, Inc.; Andrew<br />
A.Caffrey Jr.for <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs;Thomas J.Urbelis,for<br />
Zoning Board <strong>of</strong> Appeals <strong>of</strong> Andover, was present<br />
but did not argue;<strong>the</strong> following submitted briefs for<br />
amici curiae: Michael Pill,pro se; R.Jeffrey Lyman,<br />
Michael K. Murray and Adam Hollingsworth for<br />
Greater Boston Real Estate Board and o<strong>the</strong>rs (Docket<br />
No. SJC-09635) (June 16, 2006).