George, et al. v. National Water Main Cleaning Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-110-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12191 ROBERT GEORGE & others[1] vs. NATIONAL WATER MAIN CLEANING COMPANY & others.[2] Suffolk. February 14, 2017. – June 26, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Supreme Judicial Court, Certification of questions of law. Massachusetts Wage Act. Labor, Wages, Failure to pay wages, Damages. Damages, Interest. Interest. Judgment, Interest. Practice, Civil, Interest, Judgment, Damages. Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Adam J. Shafran (Jonathon D. Friedmann also present) for the plaintiffs. Richard L. Alfred (Dawn Reddy Solowey & Anne S. Bider also present) for the defendants. John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse, for New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Annette Gonthier Kiely, Kathy Jo Cook, Thomas R. Murphy, & Timothy J. Wilton, for Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, C.J. Several employees of National Water Main Cleaning Company filed a class action suit against the company and its parent company, Carylon Corporation, in the Superior Court, alleging, among other claims, nonpayment of wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150 (Wage Act). After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the judge granted final approval of a class settlement agreement that resolved all outstanding issues except one question of law. To resolve that question, the judge certified to this court the following question pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): “Is statutory interest pursuant to [G. L. c. 231, § 6B or 6C,] available under Massachusetts law when liquidated (treble) damages are awarded pursuant to [G. L. c. 149, § 150]?” In answer to the question, we declare that, under Massachusetts law, statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6H, shall be added by the clerk of court to the amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages pursuant to G. L. c. 149, § 150, but shall not be added to the additional amount of the award arising from the trebling of those damages as liquidated damages.[3] Interpretation of the certified question. Before we answer the certified question, which the judge issued at the joint request of the parties, we must first ascertain its […]
Commonwealth v. George (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-107-17)
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-12173 COMMONWEALTH vs. RICHARD GEORGE. Worcester. December 8, 2016. – June 21, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Sex Offender. Constitutional Law, Sex offender. Due Process of Law, Sex offender, Substantive rights. Evidence, Sex offender, Expert opinion, Relevancy and materiality. Witness, Expert. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 11, 2013. The case was tried before Beverly J. Cannone, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. David B. Hirsch for the defendant. Nathaniel R. Beaudoin, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant, Richard George, was determined to be a sexually dangerous person (SDP) pursuant to G. L. c. 123A. In accordance with the statute, the judge committed the defendant to the Massachusetts Treatment Center (treatment center) for an indeterminate period of from one day to life. The defendant filed a timely appeal challenging the commitment on the grounds that (1) a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a constitutionally inadequate basis for commitment as an SDP; and (2) the judge erroneously admitted expert opinion testimony on the likelihood of reoffense and the results of the Static-99R risk assessment tool. We allowed the defendant’s application for direct appellate review to clarify the relevance of an ASPD diagnosis in the sexual dangerousness calculus. We conclude that an ASPD diagnosis is a sufficient predicate for sexual dangerousness so long as other evidence establishes a nexus between that condition and the factors warranting confinement to a secure facility. Also, we discern no error in the judge’s evidentiary rulings requiring reversal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment and order for the defendant’s civil commitment to the treatment center as an SDP. Background. 1. Pretrial proceedings. In October, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 12, seeking an adjudication that the defendant is an SDP. In April, 2014, a Superior Court judge found probable cause to believe that the defendant is an SDP and committed him to the treatment center for examination and diagnosis. Two qualified examiners[1] submitted reports, opining that the defendant is an SDP within the meaning of G. L. c. 123A, § 1. The trial on the Commonwealth’s petition commenced in September, 2015. The trial. […]
George v. George (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-181-16)
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-12059 CLIFFORD E. GEORGE vs. JACQUELYN A. GEORGE. Suffolk. September 6, 2016. – November 23, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Modification of judgment. Complaint for divorce filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on May 29, 2001. A complaint for modification, filed on August 26, 2013, was heard by Jeremy A. Stahlin, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Brian J. Kelly for Clifford E. George. Matthew P. Barach (Alessandra Petrucelli with him) for Jacquelyn A. George. LOWY, J. Clifford E. George and Jacquelyn A. George married in 1989 and divorced in 2002.[1] Their separation agreement, and the judgment that followed, provided that Clifford would pay Jacquelyn monthly alimony. In 2013, Clifford filed a complaint for modification of the divorce judgment that sought, among other things, to modify his alimony obligation based on G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b), part of the Alimony Reform Act, St. 2011, c. 124 (act), which became effective on March 1, 2012, nearly ten years after the parties’ divorce. Section 49 (b) provides that general term alimony for marriages lasting more than ten years but fewer than fifteen years shall not continue for “longer than [seventy] per cent of the number of months of the marriage,” G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b) (3), a process by which a judge can deviate from the durational limit, where doing so is “required in the interests of justice.” G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b). The act also provided a phase-in schedule for when complaints for modification based on the new durational limits could be brought for alimony obligations that predated the effective date of the act. St. 2011, c. 124, §§ 4, 5. In his memorandum of decision, the Probate and Family Court judge denied Clifford’s complaint for modification because he found that deviation beyond the durational limits of the act was warranted. Clifford appealed from this judgment to the Appeals Court, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We affirm the judge’s denial of relief but on the ground that Clifford’s complaint was filed prematurely. However, we utilize this opportunity to set forth guidance for how the “interests […]
Commonwealth v. St. George (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-090-16)
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 15-P-948 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. BRADLEY J. ST. GEORGE. No. 15-P-948. Norfolk. April 14, 2016. – July 22, 2016. Present: Green, Trainor, & Milkey, JJ. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Investigatory stop, Reasonable suspicion. Threshold Police Inquiry. Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Reasonable suspicion. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Plea. Complaint received and sworn to in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department on May 17, 2010. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kevin J. O’Dea, J.; the case was tried before Robert P. Ziemian, J., and a motion for postconviction relief, filed on March 26, 2014, was heard by him. Dana Alan Curhan for the defendant. Susanne M. O’Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. TRAINOR, J. The defendant, Bradley J. St. George, appeals his convictions of distribution of a class D substance, see G. L. c. 94C, § 32C, and violating the drug laws near a school zone or park, see G. L. c. 94C, § 32J. The defendant contends that the judgments should be reversed for three reasons. First, the defendant argues that his motion to suppress should have been allowed. Second, the defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Third, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for new trial because his trial counsel deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. Background. The defendant challenges the motion judge’s decision on his motion to suppress, as well as the sufficiency of evidence at trial. We will, therefore, first summarize the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress. We will then summarize the additional evidence presented at trial. On May 14, 2010, at approximately 7:45 P.M., Quincy police Detectives William O’Brien and Dennis Keenan were working in the drug control unit. Detective O’Brien noticed a man, later identified as Robert Fitzmorris, standing in front of an apartment building. He talked on his cellular telephone, then sat in front of the building and appeared to be waiting. Detective O’Brien placed him under surveillance and contacted Detective Keenan for assistance. Less than one minute later, Detective O’Brien observed a vehicle, driven by the defendant, pick up Fitzmorris. Detective O’Brien followed the defendant as he drove into the parking lot of the St. Mary School […]
Week in Review: St. George Street Development Concerns
The following were the top articles on South End Patch from July 8 to July 12, 2013: Graybar Electric Building to Become Apa South End Patch News
Meeting to Discuss St. George St. Development Wednesday Night
What was once the long-vacant Bethel Tabernacle Pentecostal Church on St. George Street – known fondly by some locals as the “Jesus Saves Church” – was torn down in 2011, supposedly to make way for condominiums. But
Neighborhood Concerns over Development Changes on St. George Street
What was once the long-vacant Bethel Tabernacle Pentecostal Church on St. George Street – known fondly by some locals as the “Jesus Saves Church” – was torn down in 2011, supposedly to make way for condominiums. But neighbors were surprised t South End Patch News
Categories: Arrests Tags: Changes, Concerns, Development, George, Neighborhood, Over, Street