Posts tagged "court"

Charbonneau v. Presiding Justice of the Holyoke Division of the District Court Department (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-009-16)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11908

JOSHUA CHARBONNEAU  vs.  PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE HOLYOKE DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT.

Suffolk.     October 8, 2015. – January 22, 2016.

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

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  District Court.  Practice, Criminal, Plea.  Statute, Construction.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on May 13, 2015.

The case was reported by Botsford, J. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 22, 2016 at 6:02 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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 29, 2015 at 7:35 pm

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

Fitzgerald v. District Court Department of the Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-044-15)

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-11648

STEVEN FITZGERALD  vs.  DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.[1]

March 13, 2015

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Practice, Criminal, Plea.

Steven Fitzgerald appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Because we agree with the single justice that Fitzgerald is not entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, we affirm.

Fitzgerald pleaded guilty to certain criminal offenses in the District Court in 2013.  In his petition before the single justice, he argued that he was forcibly medicated when he tendered his pleas.  He also complained that he has not been able to obtain a copy of the court file of the earlier, related proceedings conducted under G. L. c. 123, §§ 8B and 16 (b), which resulted in orders that he be involuntarily committed and treated with antipsychotic medications. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 13, 2015 at 6:12 pm

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

Gallagher v. First Assistant Clerk-Magistrate of the Newburyport District Court, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-190-14)

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-11592

ROBERT GALLAGHER  vs.  FIRST ASSISTANT CLERK-MAGISTRATE OF THE NEWBURYPORT DISTRICT COURT & others.[1]

November 28, 2014

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Practice, Civil, Attorney’s fees, Small claims procedure.  District Court, Small claims procedure.

Robert Gallagher appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court dismissing his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In his petition, he sought relief from final judgments entered in two cases in the District Court Department.  In one of the cases, after Gallagher prevailed on a complaint brought against him under the harassment prevention statute, G. L. c. 258E, the judge failed to act on his request for attorney’s fees.  In the other case, judgment was entered against him on a G. L. c. 93A claim that he brought in the small claims session. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 1, 2014 at 3:26 pm

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

Campatelli v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-110-14)

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‑11654

PATRICIA CAMPATELLI  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT  & others.[1]

Suffolk.     May 8, 2014.  ‑  June 20, 2014.

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

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Register of ProbateChief Justice of the Probate and Family Court DepartmentChief Justice of the Trial CourtCourt AdministratorStatute, Construction.  Practice, Civil, Waiver.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on March 14, 2014. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm

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

Police: Two Arrested on Trotter Court for Drugs, Trespassing, and Stolen Property

Credit: Boston Police Department

Two men who were believed to be dealing drugs in the area were also found with allegedly stolen property, say police.
South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 29, 2013 at 7:26 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Marathon Bombing Suspect Tsarnaev Due in Court Wednesday

[photo]

The lone suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing will appear in court Wednesday, nearly two weeks after a grand jury returned a South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 10, 2013 at 7:45 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,

Supreme Court Kills DOMA, Dismisses Prop 8: Do You Agree with Decisions?

Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court at sun up in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013.

The Defense of Marriage Act is dead.

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal act, which barred the federal government from recognizing the married status of gay couples (and thus denied those couples federal marriage benefits) was a violation of state rights and the fifth amendment rights of individuals.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the five-Justice majority. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer signed onto the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all dissented. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 26, 2013 at 4:24 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Zaniboni v. Massachusetts Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-115-13)

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‑11219

CAROLE J. ZANIBONI  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT.

June 17, 2013.

Practice, Civil, Report, Judgment notwithstanding verdict, New trial.

The plaintiff, Carole J. Zaniboni, commenced this action in 2001, alleging that the defendant, the Massachusetts Trial Court (Trial Court), had not selected her for two different promotions in her department based on her age, in violation of G. L. c. 151B.  In November, 2006, after a Superior Court jury found in her favor with respect to one of the two positions, the trial judge denied the Trial Court’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.) but granted its alternative motion for a new trial.  The parties filed cross appeals — Zaniboni from the allowance of the Trial Court’s motion for a new trial and the Trial Court from the denial of its motion for judgment n.o.v.  The record was assembled (after some delay), and the case was entered in the Appeals Court in June, 2010.  Because the judge had granted the motion for a new trial, the appeal was premature; the record should not have been assembled and the case should not have proceeded to an appellate court.  See, e.g., Okongwu v. Stephens, 396 Mass. 724, 728-729 & n.7 (1986).  See also J.W. Smith & H.B. Zobel, Rules Practice § 50.18, at 156-157 (2d. ed. 2006). read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 17, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

McCants v. Clerk of Suffolk Superior Court for Criminal Business (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-082-13)

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‑11263

OWEN McCANTS  vs.  CLERK OF SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT FOR CRIMINAL BUSINESS.

May 14, 2013.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Moot QuestionPractice, Civil, Moot case.

Owen McCants appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court dismissing as moot his petition for a writ of mandamus and for a declaratory judgment.  We affirm.

A Superior Court jury convicted McCants of several crimes, and the Appeals Court affirmed the convictions.  See Commonwealth v. McCants, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2006).  McCants thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied.  He then filed a notice of appeal, the record was assembled, and the appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, where it remains pending.  Then, in April, 2012, he filed a petition in the county court, asserting that the trial court clerk’s office had failed to docket several pleadings that he had filed in that court in connection with the motion for a new trial.  In response, the respondent submitted a letter to the county court indicating that the clerk’s office had updated the docket to include the pleadings in question and that the entire record, including those pleadings, had been assembled and forwarded to the Appeals Court.  On the basis that McCants had received the relief that he was seeking — the docketing of his pleadings in the trial court — the single justice dismissed the petition as moot. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 15, 2013 at 1:24 am

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

« Previous PageNext Page »