Posts tagged "Weiss"

Weiss v. City of Cambridge (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-093-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1439                                        Appeals Court   MIKEL WEISS  vs.  CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.     No. 15-P-1439.   Middlesex.     May 12, 2016. – July 28, 2016.   Present:  Rubin, Milkey, & Neyman, JJ.     Negligence, Motor vehicle, Pedestrian, Contributory, Violation of statute.  Statute, Construction.  Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, New trial.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 14, 2013.   The case was tried before Peter B. Krupp, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by him.     Keplin K. U. Allwaters, Assistant City Solicitor, for the defendant. Christopher C. Mathers for the plaintiff.     MILKEY, J.  During the evening rush hour of December 7, 2011, Mikel Weiss was walking across 2nd Street in Cambridge, at its intersection with Binney Street.  Before she reached the other side, Weiss was struck by a truck that was making a left-hand turn onto 2nd Street from Binney Street.  The driver of the truck (driver) was an employee of the city of Cambridge (city), who was completing a ten-plus hour shift.[1]  As a result of the accident, Weiss suffered serious long-term injuries to both knees, incurred significant medical bills, and missed several weeks of work.  In the personal injury action that Weiss brought against the city in Superior Court, the main disputed issue was the relative degree of fault between pedestrian and driver.  Weiss was in a marked crosswalk when she was struck, but there was evidence that she was not obeying the pedestrian signal at the time.  The jury found Weiss thirty-five percent at fault, and therefore her damages award was reduced by that percentage.[2]  On appeal, the city challenges the instructions the judge gave to the jury regarding the responsibilities that drivers face pursuant to G. L. c. 89, § 11, to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks.  The city argues that under its plain language, the statute does not apply to the circumstances of this case.  We disagree and therefore affirm. Background.  The accident.  According to undisputed trial testimony, Binney Street is a “major traffic artery” that is four to five lanes wide at its intersection with 2nd Street.  For its part, 2nd Street is “more of a side street” that measures only twenty-four feet across.  At the intersection, there is both a crosswalk across 2nd Street and a pedestrian signal (commonly known […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

In the Matter of Weiss (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-039-16)

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-11890   IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD S. WEISS. March 17, 2016.     Attorney at Law, Suspension, Reinstatement.     The petitioner, Richard S. Weiss, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for reinstatement to the bar.  We affirm.   After Weiss “stipulated to facts warranting the conclusion that he violated the applicable disciplinary rules,” see Matter of Weiss, 460 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2011), he was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, effective May 20, 2011.  His first petition for reinstatement was denied by a single justice of this court in 2013, and he was given leave to reapply for reinstatement on or after January 1, 2014.  See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18 (8), as appearing in 453 Mass. 1315 (2009).  He filed a second petition for reinstatement on June 25, 2013.  The single justice denied the petition without prejudice to filing a new petition on or after January 1, 2014.  The petition he filed thereafter, his third, is the subject of this appeal.   On October 23, 2014, a hearing committee of the Board of Bar Overseers (board) held a hearing, at which Weiss was represented by counsel, on his third petition.  The committee issued a report on December 2, 2014, setting forth its findings and recommending that the petition for reinstatement be denied.  On February 22, 2015, the board voted unanimously to adopt the report of the hearing committee and its recommendation that the petition be denied.  A single justice of this court reviewed the record before the hearing committee and the board, concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the findings, and denied the petition for reinstatement.[1]  The case is now before us on Weiss’s preliminary memorandum, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:23 (b), 471 Mass. 1303 (2015).  That rule requires an appellant to   “set forth the relevant background and summarize the appellant’s arguments on appeal, with citations to applicable authority.  It is incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate in this memorandum that there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion by the single justice; that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence; that the sanction is markedly disparate from the sanctions imposed in other cases involving similar circumstances; or that for other reasons the decision will result in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 17, 2016 at 9:50 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,