Posts tagged "County"

Modica v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-079-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12201

GEORGE MODICA  vs.  SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY & others.[1]

Suffolk.     January 5, 2017. – May 15, 2017.

Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.

Correction Officer.  Words, “Bodily injury.”

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 24, 2014.

The case was heard by Douglas H. Wilkins, J., on motions for summary judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - May 15, 2017 at 5:26 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Bishay, et al. v. Clerk of the Superior Court on Norfolk County (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-018-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12153

BAHIG BISHAY & others[1]  vs.  CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN NORFOLK COUNTY.

January 23, 2017.

Mandamus.  Clerk of Court.  Judgment, Implementing settlement agreement.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Entry of judgment.

Bahig Bishay commenced an action in the Superior Court, bringing various claims against National Investigations, Inc., and its principals, Glenn Gillis and Garry Gillis (collectively, National); Harvard 45 Associates, LLC, and its principals, Harold Brown and Enrique Darer (collectively, Harvard); and Allied Finance Adjusters Conference, Inc. (Allied), arising from Bishay’s eviction from his home.  More particularly, Bishay sought damages on various theories for the removal and storage of his personal property in the course of the eviction.  Allied’s motion to dismiss the claims against it was allowed, as was Harvard’s motion for summary judgment as to both the claims against it and a counterclaim it asserted against Bishay.  Bishay and National thereafter reported that they settled their dispute, and they moved for entry of final judgment.  Harvard and Allied opposed the motion, and a judge in the Superior Court denied it.  Bishay again moved for entry of final judgment.  Harvard and Allied opposed that motion, and a different judge denied it.  Bishay and National (collectively, petitioners) jointly filed a petition in the county court seeking relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. c. 249, § 4, specifically requesting that the clerk of the Superior Court be ordered to enter final judgment as the petitioners proposed.  Harvard moved to intervene and filed an opposition, joined by Allied, in which it argued that the proposed judgment was collusive and fictitious, adverse to the interests of Harvard and Allied, and contrary to the prior ruling on summary judgment.[2]  A single justice of this court denied relief without a hearing.  The petitioners appeal. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - January 23, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-168-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-11811

BODHISATTVA SKANDHA  vs.  CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR CIVIL BUSINESS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY.

September 29, 2015.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Assembly of record.  Clerk of Court.

The petitioner, Bodhisattva Skandha, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petitions pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and for relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5.  We affirm.

Background.  The petitions stem from Skandha’s effort to appeal from the dismissal of a complaint in the Superior Court that he and two other plaintiffs filed, in August, 2010, against the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and several associated attorneys.  The plaintiffs claimed that CPCS and the attorneys had violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights by, among other things, failing to screen their new trial motions to determine whether they had any claims that would entitle them to relief from their respective convictions.  A judge in the Superior Court dismissed the complaint, in May, 2013, and it appears that Skandha timely filed a notice of appeal.[1]  The appeal was dismissed, however, in January, 2014, apparently on the basis that Skandha had failed to take the necessary steps to perfect it.[2] read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - September 29, 2015 at 7:35 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-023-15)

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - March 16, 2015 at 5:46 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Commissioners of the Bristol County Mosquito Control District v. State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-184-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC‑11320

COMMISSIONERS OF THE BRISTOL COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT[1]

vs.  STATE RECLAMATION AND MOSQUITO CONTROL BOARD & another.[2]

Bristol.     September 3, 2013.  ‑  October 30, 2013.

Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

Mosquito ControlStatute, Construction.  Moot Question.

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 8, 2009.

The case was heard by Raymond P. Veary, Jr., J., on motions for summary judgment. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - October 30, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Suffolk County Sobriety Checkpoint Planned Saturday

State Police.

Massachusetts State Police will be operating a sobriety checkpoint this week at an undisclosed location in Suffolk County.

The checkpoint will operate sometime between Saturday, June 22 and Sunday, June 23.

“The purpose is to further educate the motoring public and strengthen the public’s awareness to the need of detecting and removing those motorists who operate under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs from our roadways,” Colonel Timothy P. Alben, superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, said in a press release.

Alben noted that, “The selection of vehicles will not be arbitrary, safety will be assured, and any inconveniences to motorists will be minimized with advance notice to reduce fear and anxiety.”

For more information, visit the State Police website, www.mass.gov/msp.

SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates

South End Patch

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - June 21, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,

Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Jail Officers and Employees of Suffolk County (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-109-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC‑11229

SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY  vs.  JAIL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY.[1]

Suffolk.     February 4, 2013.  ‑  June 14, 2013.

Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

SheriffPublic Employment, Collective bargaining, Termination.  Labor, Public employment, Collective bargaining.  Arbitration, Collective bargaining, Award.  Damages, Back pay, Mitigation, Interest.  InterestGovernmental ImmunityWaiverJudgment, Enforcement, Interest.  Practice, Civil, Interest, Waiver. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - June 14, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Suffolk County Sobriety Checkpoint Planned Friday

State Police.

Massachusetts State Police will be operating a sobriety checkpoint this week at an undisclosed location in Suffolk County.

The checkpoint will operate sometime between Friday, June 7 and Saturday, June 8.

“The purpose is to further educate the motoring public and strengthen the public’s awareness to the need of detecting and removing those motorists who operate under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs from our roadways,” Colonel Timothy P. Alben, superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, said in a press release.

Alben noted that, “The selection of vehicles will not be arbitrary, safety will be assured, and any inconveniences to motorists will be minimized with advance notice to reduce fear and anxiety.”

For more information, visit the State Police website, www.mass.gov/msp.

SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates

South End Patch

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - June 3, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,

How Will Sequestration Affect Suffolk County?

The numbers here show the federal employees in Massachusetts by county in 2012, according to the latest figures from Eye on Washington, a DC-based lobbying firm that tracks federal employment. It compiles the data from the Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employment Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While much has been made written on how the current sequestration battle in Washington could affect the national economy, these numbers are meant to give readers a sense of the sequestration at the local level.

No one knows for certain what the sequestration cuts, some $ 85 billion, will mean exactly. Even if the March 1 federal cuts are enacted, the full effects would not be felt immediately. The government is required to alert impacted agencies of what cuts are to be made and what workers are to be furloughed.

It should be noted, however, that even the suggestion of cuts and the notification process itself could be felt in some community economies. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - March 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , ,