The SJC held that police corruption in the John Mulligan murder investigation did not taint a defendant's guilty pleas to separate murders, despite intersecting investigations and shared detectives, because the defendant failed to establish a nexus between the proven misconduct and his own case.
The Appeals Court holds that the summary process statute authorizes successive eviction actions even after an earlier judgment, overriding claim preclusion but leaving issue preclusion intact to prevent relitigation of decided questions.
The SJC ruled that prescribing medication qualifies as a professional service under a medical liability policy's regulatory defense clause, triggering coverage for the entire board proceeding even when other allegations involve criminal conduct.
The SJC upheld an injunction blocking Quincy from installing two ten-foot statues of Catholic saints on its new public safety building, finding the display likely violates the state constitution's ban on religious subordination.
Appeals Court holds prosecutors may use Spanish-speaking defendant's untranscribed interrogation statements to impeach trial testimony, limiting Portillo protections to the Commonwealth's case-in-chief and not rebuttal evidence.
The SJC ruled that officers lawfully seized a suspect fleeing a parking lot when they recognized him from surveillance footage showing a robbery suspect wearing distinctive clothing, upholding the seizure despite a twelve-day gap.
The Appeals Court vacated convictions for home invasion and assault because the trial judge allowed the defendant to represent himself mid-trial without conducting the required inquiry to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
The SJC reversed suppression orders in two cases, holding that delays of 109 and 123 days between cell phone seizures and warrant applications did not violate article 14 given the devices' evidentiary value as crime instrumentalities, despite police failing to prioritize warrant applications.
The SJC ruled that mandamus relief was unavailable to a pro se litigant alleging clerk's office errors in docketing and providing copies of orders, because he had adequate alternative remedies through the trial court and normal appellate process.
Appeals Court holds that a Chapter 93A demand letter accusing Chelsea of unfair post-flood conduct did not satisfy MTCA presentment requirements for a negligence claim based on defective sewer pipes because it never mentioned the incident, negligence, or infrastructure.
