Posts tagged "Norfolk"

Connor v. District Attorney for the Norfolk District (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-109-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

NORFOLK, ss.                                                                                  SUPERIOR COURT

                                                                                                            CIVIL ACTION

                                                                                                            No. 14-01322

 

 

MYLES J. CONNOR

 

vs.

 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT

 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The plaintiff, Myles J. Connor (“Connor”), brought this action for declaratory relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of certain property (“the Property”) which was seized by the District Attorney for the Norfolk District (“District Attorney”) during execution of a search warrant in 1985.  On June 12, 2017, this Court denied the District Attorney’s motion for summary judgment.  Now before the Court is the District Attorney’s motion for reconsideration.  For the reasons contained herein, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 2:10 am

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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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

Shipps v. District Attorney for the Norfolk District (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-111-15)

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-11733

WILLIAM M. SHIPPS, JR.  vs.  DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT.

July 6, 2015.

Declaratory Relief.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Sentence.

William M. Shipps, Jr., filed a complaint in the county court in 2014, pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, seeking a declaration that his sentences for murder in the first degree under G. L. c. 265, § 2, as amended by St. 1979, c. 488, § 2, which were imposed thirty years earlier, are unconstitutional.  A single justice of this court dismissed the complaint.  We affirm. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - July 6, 2015 at 11:49 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Group (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-171-14)

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-11561

BARRON CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION, P.C.  vs.  NORFOLK & DEDHAM GROUP.

Norfolk.     May 5, 2014. – October 15, 2014.

Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[1]

Insurance, Motor vehicle personal injury protection benefits, Unfair act or practice.  Contract, Insurance.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Attorney’s fees.  Consumer Protection Act, Insurance.

Civil action commenced in the Dedham Division of the District Court Department on November 25, 2009. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - October 15, 2014 at 8:00 pm

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

Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. National Continental Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-099-13)

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, Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

12‑P‑1207                                       Appeals Court

NORFOLK & DEDHAM MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY  vs.  NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 12‑P‑1207.      August 14, 2013.

Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Notice, Cancellation.  Motor Vehicle, Insurance.  Registrar of Motor VehiclesNotice, Cancellation of insurance.

The question is whether the defendant, National Continental Insurance Company (National), “immediately upon the intended effective date of the cancellation of [an automobile insurance] policy . . . forwarded to the registrar of motor vehicles a notice, in such form as he may prescribe, containing such information to apprise the registrar of the particular motor vehicle registration on which the insurance is intended to be cancelled.”[1]  G. L. c. 175, § 113A(2), as amended by St. 1990, c. 287, § 1. read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 17, 2013 at 10:04 am

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