Posts tagged "Holland"

Holland v. Kantrovitz & Kantrovitz LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-104-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-705                                        Appeals Court   LORI HOLLAND  vs.  KANTROVITZ & KANTROVITZ LLP & others.[1]     No. 16-P-705.   Suffolk.     January 10, 2017. – August 15, 2017.   Present:  Grainger, Wolohojian, & Neyman, JJ.[2]     Practice, Civil, Summary judgment.  Attorney at Law, Malpractice, Negligence.  Negligence, Attorney at law. Limitations, Statute of.  Bankruptcy, Discharge.  Judicial Estoppel.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 29, 2013.   The case was heard by Linda E. Giles, J., on a motion for summary judgment.     Luke Rosseel for the plaintiff. Daniel R. Sonneborn for the defendants.     WOLOHOJIAN, J.  In September 2009, the plaintiff retained the defendants as personal injury counsel to represent her with respect to serious injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on ice the year before.  Approximately one month later, acting pro se, she filed for bankruptcy protection, and received a bankruptcy discharge in early 2010.  Thereafter, in 2011, the defendants allowed the statute of limitations on the personal injury claim to expire without filing suit.  This legal malpractice suit followed.  The question on appeal is whether the plaintiff’s malpractice claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment on the ground that the bankruptcy action (or the position the plaintiff took in it) foreclosed them.  We reverse. Reserving additional facts to the analysis that follows, we recite here only the core facts, and do so in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor.  See, e.g., Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34, 38 (2005).  On January 15, 2008, the plaintiff, a State employee, was seriously injured when she slipped and fell on ice outside the building in which she worked.  The building was owned and/or maintained by a private entity, Northland Investment Corporation.  The ice had accumulated because of a defective gutter and had not been salted.  The plaintiff’s injuries were sufficiently severe that she lost 410 scheduled work days, and even as late as September 2012, she remained unable to work full time. During the workers’ compensation proceedings relating to her injuries, the plaintiff was approached by defendant Martin Kantrovitz’s associate, who told her that the defendants would like to represent her.  She agreed and, by September 9, 2009, had retained the defendants to represent her as personal injury counsel.  The plaintiff alleges […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 15, 2017 at 4:56 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Holland (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-17)

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-08737   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DANIEL L. HOLLAND.       Norfolk.     November 10, 2016. – April 19, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, & Lowy, JJ.     Homicide.  Armed Home Invasion.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Fair trial.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Postconviction relief, Assistance of counsel, Fair trial, Comment by judge.  Mental Impairment.  Insanity.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 18, 1998.   The cases were tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J., and motions for a new trial, filed on April 3, 2006, and December 18, 2008, were heard by him.     Kevin S. Nixon for the defendant. Tracey A. Cusick, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     HINES, J.  On October 13, 1998, the victim was shot to death in her home.  A jury convicted the defendant, the victim’s estranged husband, of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and armed home invasion.  The defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of his two motions for a new trial.  In his brief on appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his first motion for a new trial on the ground that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.   We affirm his convictions as well as the orders denying the motions for a new trial. Background.  1.  The trial.  Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the jury could have found the following facts.  The defendant and the victim were married in 1989, and their son was born later that year.  A few years later, the couple moved into their family home, located in Quincy.  As time progressed, the marriage became turbulent and tension grew between the couple.  In February, 1998, the victim sought and was granted a restraining order against the defendant, the terms of which required him to vacate the marital home.  For a number of months, the defendant stayed with family or friends and later moved into an apartment in the Dorchester section of Boston.  In September, 1998, the defendant and his then girl friend moved to Richmond, New Hampshire, to live with the defendant’s uncle. On the afternoon of the day of the murder, the defendant […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 19, 2017 at 3:20 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Holland, et al. v. Jachmann, et al. (Lawyer Weekly No. 11-047-14)

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     13‑P‑0280                                       Appeals Court   RANDYE M. HOLLAND, trustee,[1] & others[2]  vs.  EMIL JACHMANN & another[3] (No. 1). No. 13‑P‑280. Hampden.     January 8, 2014.  ‑  May 14, 2014. Present:  Kantrowitz, Vuono, & Sullivan, JJ.   Consumer Protection Act, Unfair or deceptive act, Attorney’s fees.  Practice, Civil, Consumer protection case, Attorney’s fees.  Damages, Attorney’s fees.  Contract, Performance and breach, Agreement not to compete.  Attorney at Law, In‑house counsel.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 27, 2006.   The case was heard by Peter A. Velis, J.; postjudgment motions regarding attorney’s fees were heard by him; and entry of a final amended judgment was ordered by him.     Susan E. Stenger (Thomas T. Reith with her) for the defendants. George Stanbury, of California, for the plaintiffs.       KANTROWITZ, J.  Of significance, we are asked whether attorney’s fees for legal work performed by in-house counsel may be awarded under G. L. c. 93A.  We hold that, in the discretion of the trial judge, such fees may be awarded. The plaintiffs (sometimes referred to collectively as Omniglow) brought the present action against Cyalume Technologies, Inc. (Cyalume), and Emil Jachmann, its chief executive officer (collectively, defendants), seeking to remedy the defendants’ efforts to undermine the plaintiffs’ business.  After a seventeen-day, jury-waived trial, the judge found the defendants liable for numerous breaches of contract, conversion, and violations of G. L. c. 93A.  Several posttrial proceedings ensued, concluding in a final judgment entered on August 1, 2011, largely in favor of the plaintiffs.  Following the disposition of the postjudgment motions, an amended final judgment was entered on July 12, 2012. On appeal, the defendants raise many issues.  While involved and complicated, ultimately they are of a garden variety, albeit weed-infested, and best resolved via an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to our rule 1:28 that is also being issued today.  Holland v. Jachmann (No. 2), post    (2014).  As such, we concern ourselves here only with the c. 93A issues. Background.  This business dispute arose out of a complicated transaction through which the Omniglow Corporation, a manufacturer of light sticks and other luminescent products, was effectively split into two companies. In late 2005, the company now known as Cyalume purchased the profitable segments of the Omniglow Corporation consisting principally of sales in the government, military, and safety (GMS) markets.  As a condition of the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 14, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,