Posts tagged "Weekly"

Zelby Holdings, Inc. v. Videogenix, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-106-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-874                                         Appeals Court

ZELBY HOLDINGS, INC.  vs.  VIDEOGENIX, INC.

No. 16-P-874.

Norfolk.     February 10, 2017. – August 18, 2017.

Present:  Green, Milkey, & Neyman, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments, Note, Payment.  Uniform Commercial Code, Payment on negotiable instrument.  Payment.  Limitations, Statute of.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Statute of limitations.  Common Law.  Contract, Unjust enrichment.  Unjust Enrichment.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 19, 2017 at 6:48 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Wampler (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-134-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12333

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  LARRY D. WAMPLER, JR.

August 18, 2017.

Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Postconviction relief, Appeal.

The defendant, Larry D. Wampler, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree by reason of deliberate premeditation.  We affirmed the conviction.  Commonwealth v. Hung Tan Vo, 427 Mass. 464 (1998).[1]  The defendant recently filed, in the Superior Court, a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, which was denied.  He then applied to a single justice of this court for leave to appeal from the denial of that motion pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  The single justice denied the application.  The defendant has appealed, and the Commonwealth has moved to dismiss the appeal.  “A defendant who is denied leave to appeal from a single justice acting as a gatekeeper pursuant to the last sentence of G. L. c. 278, § 33E, has no right to appeal from the single justice’s ruling denying leave.  The single justice’s ruling is ‘final and unreviewable.’”  Commonwealth v. Companonio, 472 Mass. 1004 (2015), quoting Commonwealth v. Gunter, 456 Mass. 1017, 1017 (2010).  The defendant cannot appeal to the full court.[2]

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 19, 2017 at 3:13 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Riva v. Massachusetts Parole Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-136-17)

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-12270

JAMES RIVA  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD.

August 18, 2017.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Parole.  Practice, Criminal, Discovery.

The petitioner, James Riva, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.

Riva is currently serving a life sentence for second degree murder.  After the parole board (board) denied him parole in January, 2015, he filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking certiorari review and a declaratory judgment in connection with claimed constitutional violations that occurred in the course of the proceedings before the board.  The board’s motion to dismiss the complaint was allowed as to the declaratory judgment claim but denied as to the certiorari claim.  Riva’s subsequently-filed motion to compel discovery was initially denied, but, on Riva’s motion for reconsideration, the motion judge indicated that the motion was allowed “to the extent that the administrative record shall reflect the evidence relied upon by the parole board to issue its decision.”  Riva then filed a “motion for relief,” which also pertained to certain discovery.  After this motion was denied, Riva filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court.  In the petition, he argued that his case could not proceed in the trial court without the requested discovery.  The single justice denied the petition without a hearing.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 11:39 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Martin v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-137-17)

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-12288

JAMES MARTIN  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.

August 18, 2017.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Attorney at Law, Disqualification.  District Attorney.

The petitioner, James Martin, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.

Martin, an attorney with a practice in the Springfield area, has been indicted by a Hampden County grand jury on charges of rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (), and indecent assault and battery, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H.  He filed a motion to disqualify the Hampden County district attorney’s office from prosecuting the case on the basis that it would constitute a conflict of interest because he has worked closely with that office in resolving cases for a number of years.  After a judge in the Superior Court denied the motion, Martin filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court.  A single justice denied the petition without a hearing.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 8:06 pm

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

Wassilie v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-135-17)

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-12306

SAM C. WASSILIE  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.

August 18, 2017.

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

The petitioner, Sam C. Wassilie, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.

Wassilie was indicted on twenty-two counts of videotaping, with his cellular telephone, individuals who were nude or partially nude, in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 105 ().  The charges stem from two recordings, made continuously and on the same day at a public restroom, showing twelve adults and five juveniles in various states of nudity.  Wassilie filed a motion to dismiss, and at a hearing on the motion, a judge in the Superior Court ordered that any duplicative charges be dismissed.  The Commonwealth subsequently filed a nolle prosequi as to five of the twenty-two counts.  Wassilie’s motion to dismiss was otherwise denied, as was his motion to suppress evidence.  He then filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, arguing that the statute does not allow for separate prosecutions as to each individual videotaped, that the charges are therefore duplicative, and that he should not have to be subject to a trial on multiple indictments that expose him to multiple punishments.  A single justice denied the petition without a hearing.[1]

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Duart (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-132-17)

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-12302

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  PETER J. DUART.

Dukes.     May 4, 2017. – August 17, 2017.

Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ.

Judge.  Practice, Criminal, New trial, Disqualification of judge, Assistance of counsel.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 5, 2010.

A motion for a new trial, filed on February 18, 2015, was heard by Charles J. Hely, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Santana (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-133-17)

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-12039

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CESAR SANTANA.

Essex.     January 10, 2017. – August 17, 2017.

Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, & Gaziano, JJ.

Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Hearsay, Expert opinion.  Witness, Expert.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Mistrial, Argument by prosecutor, Plea.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 9:21 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

G6 Hospitality Property LLC v. Town of Braintree Board of Health (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-107-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

NORFOLK, ss.                                                                      SUPERIOR COURT

                                                                                                CIVIL ACTION

  1. 17-0882

 

 

G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY LLC

 

vs.

 

TOWN OF BRAINTREE BOARD OF HEALTH

 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
ON PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In its complaint in this action, Plaintiff G6 Hospitality Property LLC (“G6”), which operates a Motel 6 located at 125 Union Street, Braintree, Massachusetts (“the Motel”), seeks certiorari review under G.L. c. 249, § 4 of a decision made by the defendant, Town of Braintree Board of Health (“the Board”), to revoke G6’s license to operate the Motel under G.L. c. 140, §32B and c. 111, §122.[1]  At issue before the Court is G6’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board from enforcing its July 13, 2017, decision to revoke G6’s license while this case is litigated.

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 18, 2017 at 5:46 am

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

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: , , , , , ,

JG Wentworth Origination, LLC, Transferee, and N. Laudano, Payee (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-110-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

SUFFOLK, ss                                                                                                                                    SUPERIOR COURT

  1. 17-2188-C

 

 

 

 

                                                             J.G. WENTWORTH

                                                          ORIGINATIONS, LLC

 

                                                                      Transferee

 

                                                                          -and-

 

  1. LAUDANO

 

                                                                          Payee

read more

Posted by Stephen Sandberg - August 17, 2017 at 10:36 pm

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

Next Page »