A. David Mazzone

The case involved a Jordanian permanent resident who pled guilty in 1984 to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He later faced deportation proceedings and petitioned for writs of error coram nobis and audita querela, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney wrongly assured him that a judicial recommendation against deportation would shield him from removal under then-existing immigration law. The court granted the petition, holding that counsel's affirmative misrepresentations about the statutory limits of the recommendation constituted a fundamental Sixth Amendment error in the plea process. It further found that the petitioner had diligently sought relief, continued to suffer severe collateral consequences, and had no other available remedies.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case concerns two consolidated actions brought by residents of the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons challenging conditions of confinement and adequacy of treatment under the 1947 state law providing for civil commitment of such persons. In 1974, the district court entered consent decrees requiring the facility to operate primarily under Department of Mental Health authority, provide the least restrictive conditions possible, improve physical plant and programs, and avoid punitive solitary confinement. After twenty-five years of litigation, the defendants renewed their motion to vacate or terminate the decrees. The court reviewed the deplorable conditions that originally prompted the decrees and noted the intervening enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limits federal courts' authority to grant or maintain prospective relief in cases involving prison conditions and sets standards for terminating existing consent decrees.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns whether Massachusetts could validly adopt and enforce portions of California's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, which permits other states to copy California motor vehicle emission standards but requires those standards to be identical and adopted with sufficient lead time. The auto manufacturers challenged the Massachusetts regulations after California repealed its ZEV requirements for model years 1998 and 2000 and replaced them with memoranda of agreement. The court granted summary judgment, holding that Massachusetts' amended ZEV mandate was not identical to the California standards in effect at the time of adoption and therefore fell outside the narrow exception to federal preemption in section 209(a). The reasoning centered on the statutory text of sections 177 and 209, the history of California's waiver, and the requirement that states may adopt only one of two permissible regulatory schemes (federal or California) to avoid creating a prohibited third car.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved James Mazzarella, a USPS custodian with a psychiatric disability, who was terminated after a December 1990 incident where he engaged in violent and destructive behavior at work. He sued the USPS alleging handicap discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and a violation of his constitutional property rights. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Mazzarella was dismissed due to his misconduct rather than his disability, and that he failed to show he was an otherwise qualified individual under the Act. Additionally, the constitutional claim was dismissed because statutory remedies exist for such discrimination claims and no procedural deficiencies were alleged.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned whether the Massachusetts Department of Revenue could keep funds it levied from a bankrupt company's bank account to satisfy unpaid withheld state income taxes, or whether those funds were recoverable by the bankruptcy trustee as an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547. The district court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 62B, § 5 creates a trust for withheld taxes that parallels the federal trust in 26 U.S.C. § 7501, making the Supreme Court's decision in Begier v. IRS controlling. Under Begier, the withheld taxes are not property of the debtor, a trust arises upon payment of net wages without need for segregation or strict tracing of specific dollars, and the debtor's ability to pay the taxes satisfies the required nexus to the trust funds. The court therefore vacated the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that analysis.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved investors in the New America High Income Fund who sued the Fund, its officers, directors, and underwriters, claiming that the prospectus for the Fund's 1988 initial public offering contained misrepresentations about the historical performance, yields, and default rates of high yield bonds, in violation of sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. After earlier claims were dismissed, the remaining allegations centered on whether the prospectus painted an overly optimistic picture of the bond market without adequate disclosure of risks. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure standard requiring the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and concluded that summary judgment was appropriate because the prospectus disclosures were accurate and included an explicit disclaimer that past performance did not guarantee future results.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Bays' Legal Fund v. Browner, environmental groups sued the EPA and Commerce Department to halt construction of a sewer outfall tunnel in Boston Harbor and the Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act and related statutes because the project could harm listed whales and sea turtles. The district court consolidated the motion for a preliminary injunction with a merits review under Rule 65 and examined the agencies' compliance with ESA Section 7 consultation requirements, biological assessments, and Section 7(d) limits on irreversible commitments of resources. The court found that the EPA had conducted assessments concluding the tunnel would not adversely affect the species, that formal consultation with NMFS was ongoing, and that plaintiffs had not shown the agencies' decision to allow continued construction was arbitrary or capricious. It noted the substantial investment already made and the environmental benefits of completing the harbor cleanup, and therefore declined to order a shutdown.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case is an appeal by creditor General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) from a bankruptcy court order denying its motion to extend the deadline for objecting to debtor John Voller's Chapter 7 discharge. GMAC sought to challenge dischargeability based on alleged misrepresentations in connection with a boat loan exceeding $766,000, citing Bankruptcy Code sections 523 and 727. The district court reviewed the undisputed facts de novo and found that GMAC's December 16, 1992 motion for extension was timely because the bankruptcy court had changed the filing deadline without providing required notice to GMAC under Bankruptcy Rule 2002(f) and local rules, and the docket had not been promptly updated. The court concluded that GMAC was neither negligent nor required to file by the original November 30 deadline and that one creditor's extension motion could apply to others. It therefore reversed the denial of the extension request.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose from a 1988 car accident in which the Brandleys suffered serious injuries after being struck by a truck that ran a red light; they sued the other driver's employer's insurer, Fidelity, alleging unfair claims settlement practices under Massachusetts General Laws chapters 93A and 176D after the underlying liability claims were settled for $84,000. The remaining dispute concerned Fidelity's alleged failures to respond promptly to communications, make equitable settlement offers once liability was clear, and avoid compelling litigation through lowball offers. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found no genuine disputes of material fact, applied the statutory standards for unfair practices, and held that the Brandleys were entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the insurer's multi-year delays and settlement conduct. The opinion addresses liability under specific subsections of chapter 176D and notes related issues of causation and damages under chapter 93A.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Congressman Nicholas Mavroules facing federal charges including a RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), conspiracy to commit extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and filing false financial disclosure reports under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The defendant moved to dismiss various counts on grounds of defective indictment language, multiplicity, statute of limitations, and selective prosecution. The district court denied all motions, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations. It held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of each offense and essential facts, that separate counts required proof of distinct facts, and that there was no credible evidence of partisan selective prosecution against the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Action Ambulance Service suing hospital operators, their subsidiaries, and a competing ambulance provider for allegedly creating an illegal tying arrangement that required patients needing ambulance transport to use the defendants' service in exchange for profit-sharing, along with related kickback claims under Medicare and Medicaid laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust tying counts and a state consumer protection count, and to strike certain fraud and influence allegations. The court applied the legal standards for tying arrangements from Supreme Court precedents such as Northern Pacific Railway v. United States and Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, examined whether parties not active in both the tying and tied product markets could be liable, and considered whether alleged violations of criminal anti-fraud statutes could form the basis for a private claim under Massachusetts' consumer protection law.

business & regulatoryhealthcarecriminal law

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court order regarding the post-petition interest rate applicable to the City of Cambridge's secured real estate tax claim of approximately $670,613 against debtors Peter Wasserman and Sharon Cerny in their Chapter 11 proceedings. The bankruptcy court had applied the Massachusetts statutory rate of 16% under M.G.L. ch. 60 § 62, but the district court reversed, holding that the federal judgment rate of 8.155% under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 was the appropriate rate. The court reasoned that the higher statutory rate would inequitably diminish assets available to unsecured creditors, who were unlikely to be fully repaid, and would over-enrich the City beyond current market conditions, while the federal rate better aligned with fluctuating Treasury bill yields to balance creditor protection and the debtors' fresh start. The decision drew on precedents emphasizing equitable distribution in bankruptcy and the need to tailor interest rates to case-specific facts rather than applying a static statutory figure.

taxespropertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves officers from the former Metropolitan District Commission Police and Registry of Motor Vehicles Law Enforcement Division challenging a Massachusetts law (chapter 412 of the 1991 Acts) that requires members of the newly consolidated Department of State Police to retire by age 55, alleging it violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the retirements scheduled for December 31, 1992. The court granted the injunction after applying the four-part test for preliminary relief, finding that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits because prior circuit precedent upholding a lower retirement age as a bona fide occupational qualification had been undermined by intervening Supreme Court decisions on the BFOQ defense, evidence of physical fitness testing, and changes in the composition of the force. The balance of harms, irreparable injury from loss of employment status, and public interest factors also weighed in favor of relief, as monetary damages would not fully compensate the officers and reinstatement might become impossible for some if litigation extended beyond the retirement age.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves civil rights claims brought by Boston Police Superior Officers Federation president William Broderick and the Federation against the City of Boston and BPD officials, alleging a pattern of harassment and retaliation for Broderick's union activities, public criticism of the department, and court filings. The specific issue before the court was the City's motion for summary judgment on Count Two, which asserted municipal liability under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA). The court reviewed the summary judgment standard, detailed the alleged facts including promotion bypasses, disciplinary actions, and denials of off-duty work permissions tied to Broderick's protected conduct, and analyzed whether MCRA claims against municipalities require proof of an unconstitutional policy or custom akin to the Monell standard under section 1983, as well as the necessity of threats, intimidation, or coercion. The opinion discusses relevant state and federal precedents on these elements of municipal liability and causation without resolving the motion in the provided excerpt.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the Boston Herald's FOIA requests to Amtrak for payroll information of Boston division employees, including names, titles, salaries, and overtime, as well as records on the number and outcomes of disciplinary appeals by Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers members over seven years. Amtrak denied the requests, citing exemptions for internal practices, confidential commercial information, deliberative processes, and personal privacy, prompting cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted each motion in part and denied it in part, requiring disclosure of certain payroll data and appeal logs while upholding withholding of some internal case-handling statements and redacted personal details. The core reasoning applied de novo review under FOIA's presumption of disclosure, narrowly construing exemptions and balancing public interest against protected interests in confidentiality and privacy.

procedurelabor & employment

In Gross v. Bohn, a Boston police officer sued Stoughton and Boston police officers and the City of Boston after multiple traffic stops and an arrest based on a mistaken-identity flier linking his vehicle to a murder suspect. The defendants moved to dismiss various federal civil-rights counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state claims, arguing lack of personal participation, insufficient facts, and municipal immunity for intentional torts. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motions, finding the complaint alleged enough facts to survive the high bar for dismissal at the pleading stage and that further factual development was needed. The district judge adopted the recommendation after de novo review.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case is a consolidated class action brought by Healthco shareholders alleging that the company and its CEO violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, along with common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, by issuing false and misleading statements about a proposed merger with Hicks, Muse. The statements at issue included a Form 10-Q describing the merger agreement and a later press report expressing confidence that financing would be obtained, which plaintiffs claimed omitted material information about fourth-quarter losses and risks to the deal's EBITDA condition. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all counts under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), holding that the disclosures were not materially false or misleading, defendants had no affirmative duty to disclose the omitted facts absent insider trading or a specific regulatory requirement, and the complaint lacked the particularity needed to plead fraud. The opinion emphasized that general allegations of knowledge were insufficient and that the merger remained subject to multiple conditions, including stockholder approval and financing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Towns of Norfolk and Walpole challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of a permit for constructing a residuals landfill near Walpole as part of the Boston Harbor sewage treatment project, which required filling a small man-made wetland. The towns argued that the Corps failed to comply with the Clean Water Act's § 404(b)(1) guidelines and NEPA requirements. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the Corps properly applied the relevant guidelines, conducted an adequate public interest review, and reasonably decided not to supplement the environmental impact statement. The decision was based on review of the administrative record, which showed no bad faith or procedural errors by the agencies involved.

environmentprocedurefederal power

The case consolidated four class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws, common-law fraud and misrepresentation, and RICO claims against Prospect Street High Income Portfolio, Inc., its directors, investment adviser, and underwriters. Plaintiffs claimed that the IPO prospectus and subsequent reports contained materially false statements minimizing junk-bond default risks, concealing conflicts with Drexel and Milken, and inflating the value of the fund’s portfolio, causing investors losses after the 1989 market collapse. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the entire amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It held that the allegations failed to plead fraud with particularity, did not adequately allege loss causation for the section 10(b) claim, and lacked two predicate acts plus proximate causation for the RICO claim against Milken, while granting leave to amend the non-RICO counts to cure the deficiencies. The decision followed the reasoning of a nearly identical earlier case involving another high-yield fund.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and its president, William Broderick, against the City of Boston and police officials, alleging a pattern of harassment and retaliation for Broderick's public statements to the media, union activities, and court filings. The statements, made after the murder of a police officer during a raid, criticized department morale, leadership, training, supervision, and political influences on personnel decisions. The court addressed a motion for partial summary judgment on the threshold legal question of whether Broderick's speech addressed matters of public concern and thus received First Amendment protection under the standards from Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Education, which require examining the content, form, and context of the statements. The opinion analyzes the undisputed facts of the statements and their surrounding circumstances to determine if they qualify for protection, while staying other discovery pending resolution of this issue.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights