Posts tagged "Todd"

Cesso v. Todd (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-110-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-76                                         Appeals Court   THOMAS CESSO  vs.  GARY OWEN TODD.     No. 16-P-76.   Essex.     January 6, 2017. – August 28, 2017.   Present:  Vuono, Milkey, & Henry, JJ.     Attorney at Law, Malpractice, Attorney-client relationship, Withdrawal, Signing of pleadings and other court papers.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 16, 2011.   The case was heard by Timothy Q. Feeley, J., on a motion for summary judgment.     Mary-Ellen Manning for the plaintiff. Nancy M. Reimer for the defendant.     HENRY, J.  The plaintiff, Thomas Cesso, appeals from the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Gary Owen Todd, on Cesso’s claims of legal malpractice and misrepresentation.  Because genuine issues of material fact exist on the summary judgment record, especially whether an attorney-client relationship continued to exist between Todd and Cesso after July 25, 2008, we vacate in part and affirm in part. Background.  We summarize the undisputed facts drawn from the summary judgment record; to the extent the record includes disputed evidence, we consider that evidence in the light most favorable to Cesso, against whom summary judgment entered.  See Ritter v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 214, 215 (2003). The parties do not agree on when the attorney-client relationship began or ended.  For purposes of this opinion, we note their differences and, where material, resolve differences in the light most favorable to Cesso.  Cesso contends that his attorney-client relationship with Todd, an attorney at the law firm Todd & Weld LLP (Todd & Weld), commenced on May 28, 2008, when Cesso spoke with Todd to discuss the possibility of Todd taking over representation of Cesso in a divorce action that was set for trial shortly thereafter.  On June 6, 2008, Cesso met with Todd to continue the discussion in person.  On June 30, 2008, Todd introduced Cesso to another Todd & Weld attorney, John Earl Quigley, who would assist Todd in the representation.[1]  On July 3, 2008, Cesso’s prior attorney withdrew from the divorce action.  On July 7, 2008, Cesso asked Todd and Quigley to send him a client agreement and to enter their appearances in the divorce action.  This is when Todd contends the representation commenced.  On July 9, 2008, both Todd and Quigley filed appearances for Cesso in the divorce action. […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 28, 2017 at 4:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Todd (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-095-15)

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   13-P-1766                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  KEITH TODD. No. 13-P-1766. Essex.     February 6, 2015. – August 6, 2015.   Present:  Cypher, Hanlon, & Agnes, JJ.     Youthful Offender Act.  Grand Jury.  Evidence, Grand jury proceedings.  Practice, Criminal, Grand jury proceedings, Dismissal.  Probable Cause.  Rape.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 26, 2013.   After transfer to the juvenile session of the Gloucester Division of the District Court Department, a motion to dismiss was heard by Joseph W. Jennings, III, J.     Ronald DeRosa, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Patricia L. Garin for the juvenile.     CYPHER, J.  A District Court judge granted a motion by the juvenile, Keith Todd, to dismiss a youthful offender indictment on a charge of rape of a child.  The juvenile argued in his motion to dismiss that the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient to establish that he committed the crime of rape, specifically that there was insufficient evidence “that the conduct constituting the alleged sexual assault involved the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm” and that the grand jurors were not properly instructed on this element of the youthful offender statute.  The Commonwealth appeals, arguing that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment, where the evidence of the digital penetration, coupled with the circumstances of the penetration, demonstrated that the juvenile’s conduct involved threat of serious bodily harm to the victim to sustain a rape charge under the youthful offender statute. 1.  Evidence before the grand jury.  Detective Steven Mizzoni of the Gloucester police department presented the Commonwealth’s case to the grand jury.  The juvenile was a fifteen year old boy; the victim was an eight year old girl. According to the victim, she had been “playing down the street a few blocks away” from her house with three boys, including her brother.  One of the boys was performing bicycle tricks, while the others watched.  While the victim was there, the juvenile allegedly directed her away from where the other boys were playing to an area of an abandoned building.  Once in this area, the juvenile then allegedly put his hands down the front and back of the victim’s pants.  The victim said that when the juvenile first put his hand down her pants, he “put his hand […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 7, 2015 at 3:34 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,