John Spalding

The case involved homeowners who obtained a building permit for a cottage but had it suspended for lacking 100 feet of frontage on a public or qualifying way, as their lot only had 29 feet on a town road and abutted a private drive for 98 feet without rights to use it. The board upheld the suspension, but the trial judge reversed, finding the planning board's subdivision approval granted sufficient rights to use the private way. The appeals court reversed, holding that approval under the Subdivision Control Law does not confer usage rights on lots outside the subdivision, and no other basis for rights existed, thus affirming the board's decision while staying enforcement for 90 days due to construction hardship.

property

The case involved the convictions of defendant John S. Stewart for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and related assault charges arising from a 1969 armed robbery at a Boston cafe during which he shot and killed a police officer and wounded others. The defendant's primary defense was voluntary intoxication, which he argued prevented him from forming the specific intent required for the crimes, and he challenged the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction on that point. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, holding that under longstanding precedent from the McNeil case interpreting the relevant statute, intoxication is not a defense that negates the intent elements or reduces the degree of murder in such circumstances. The court reasoned that the statutory language and nearly twenty years of consistent interpretation supported this rule, with any potential change better left to the legislature rather than judicial overruling.

criminal law

This case was a tort action brought by a mover injured when a fire escape stairway collapsed due to a hidden defect on premises owned by the defendant landlord. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial judge set aside by entering judgment for the defendant, but the appeals court sustained the plaintiff's exceptions and ordered judgment on the jury verdict. The court reasoned that a landlord with actual knowledge of a hidden defect in demised premises owes a duty to warn the tenant, and that the plaintiff as a business invitee of the tenants stood in the same position; evidence supported findings that the defendant knew of the defect in the stairway but failed to warn the tenants of it.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved appeals from a defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, armed robbery while masked, and related charges stemming from a 1967 robbery in which he shot and killed a store owner and wounded another person before fleeing and being arrested. After initially pleading guilty to second-degree murder (which the judge accepted, resulting in a life sentence), the defendant successfully moved to withdraw the plea to pursue a trial where he hoped for acquittal; he was then tried and convicted on the first-degree murder charge, with the jury recommending against the death penalty. The court rejected the defendant's primary argument that the earlier guilty plea created double jeopardy barring trial on first-degree murder, holding that he had not been placed in jeopardy on that charge or had waived any such protection by retracting the plea with full awareness of the consequences. The opinion also addressed and dismissed various other claims regarding evidence, procedure, and sentencing, ultimately affirming all convictions under its review powers.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a building permit issued by the town of Harwich for construction of a duplex house on a single lot in a residential district, where the zoning by-law limited lots to one principal structure and permitted only detached one- or two-family dwellings. The plaintiff appealed the board of appeals' decision upholding the permit, arguing the original structure with a breezeway connecting two separate dwellings violated the by-law. By the time the case reached the Supreme Judicial Court, the defendant had modified the building by removing the breezeway, adding a continuous roof, and creating internal connections, rendering the original facts obsolete. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the structure had changed substantially since the lower court proceedings but expressed the view that the modified building constituted one principal structure in compliance with the zoning by-law. The case was remanded for entry of a decree dismissing the appeal on mootness grounds without reaching the merits of the original facts.

propertyprocedure

The case involved two juveniles adjudged delinquent in District Court who appealed to the Superior Court under G.L. c. 119, § 56 and requested jury trials, which the court denied before trying them without a jury and committing them to the Youth Service Board. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the denial of jury trials was error. The core reasoning was that § 56 requires juvenile appeals to be tried in the same manner as criminal appeals, and statutes governing criminal cases in Superior Court (G.L. c. 278, § 2 and G.L. c. 263, § 6) provide for jury trials unless waived, with no contrary legislative intent expressed for juveniles; the court found this consistent with G.L. c. 119, § 53's directive to treat juveniles as children rather than criminals.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a former general manager of an industrial laundry company violated a consent decree that enjoined him from soliciting or serving certain customers, including government agencies, in a defined territory for three years after leaving his employment. The court found the defendant in contempt for submitting bids and performing a dust-control contract with the General Services Administration, a covered customer. It upheld liability but modified the damages award to reflect only the plaintiff's lost net profits of $924.69 rather than a larger gross figure, allowed interest on that amount from the date damages were sustained, and awarded reasonable attorney's fees with interest from the master's report.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit arising from a 1964 automobile accident on Route 7 in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, where the plaintiff swerved off the road and struck a tree to avoid what appeared to be oncoming headlights in her lane from a passing vehicle and a stalled car. The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs, finding the defendant negligent for running out of gas and failing to move his stalled Volvo promptly. On appeal, the court affirmed the verdicts, holding there was sufficient evidence that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, that the plaintiff acted prudently in responding to a sudden emergency, and that the trial judge did not err in admitting expert testimony, denying a mistrial, or instructing the jury on issues including contributory negligence and a statute on slow-moving vehicles. The court rejected the defendant's claims that the plaintiff abandoned care for her safety or that the instructions were improper.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The plaintiffs, owners and developers of a shopping center, brought a bill in equity against their tenant Sarni, a dry cleaning business, seeking to enjoin operation of its plant in an allegedly offensive and noisy manner that violated lease provisions prohibiting objectionable noise. The trial judge found that the building's construction transmitted vibration and sound from multiple sources including Sarni's conveyor, but that the noise level from Sarni's modern equipment was no greater than that of an average careful operation and did not violate the lease when sections requiring efficient plant operation and prohibiting objectionable noise were read together; the judge also rejected claims that relocating a shirt press constituted an unauthorized alteration. The court affirmed the rulings that no lease violation occurred, modified the decree to reflect that some relief had been granted to the plaintiffs, and affirmed the decree as modified. The core reasoning was that the lease could not be interpreted to require noiseless operation of a business it expressly contemplated, and the evidence did not isolate Sarni's contribution to the objectionable sound as a breach.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiffs sought damages from both the vehicle operator and its owner on counts for personal injury and consequential damages. The court upheld the denial of the defendants' motion to strike a neurologist's testimony that was based in part on an electro-encephalogram, holding that questions about the test's reliability went to the weight of the evidence for the jury rather than its admissibility, especially since the opinion was not based solely on that test. The court also affirmed the grant of a new trial on the counts against the owner, concluding that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence on the issue of agency and that the trial judge had discretion to set them aside despite the statutory prima facie evidence of agency.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved appeals from convictions on multiple indictments stemming from an armed bank robbery in which the defendant and an accomplice stole a car with stolen plates and placed bank employees in fear. The defendant pleaded guilty during trial to four indictments charging him as an accessory after the fact, after which the jury convicted him on the remaining indictments charging him as a principal. The defendant argued that the guilty pleas and jury verdicts were inconsistent, that he was subjected to double jeopardy, and that multiple indictments for essentially the same conduct violated due process. The court affirmed the judgments, reasoning that the jury verdicts were internally consistent, the defendant had consented to the procedure by not objecting, accessory after the fact is a distinct offense from being a principal, and the separate indictments alleged distinct offenses with concurrent sentences rendering any error harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over interests in a family trust established in 1950 by Samuel Gordon. After the settlor's death, one of the trustee-beneficiaries, David Gordon, misappropriated over $40,000 from the trust and later died before the trust terminated upon the death of the settlor's widow. David's children sued, claiming they were entitled to a one-third share of the remaining trust assets directly from the settlor, unaffected by their father's actions. The court ruled that David's interest was a contingent remainder that never vested because he did not survive the trust's termination, so his children took as alternate contingent remaindermen and were not bound by his misconduct or restitution agreement. The decision rested on the trust instrument's explicit "if living" language creating survivorship contingencies, which prevented forfeiture of the plaintiffs' interests.

propertyfamily law

The case concerned a dispute over enforcement of a purchase and sale agreement for an apartment building in Brighton, Massachusetts, where the buyer provided a $30,000 deposit check drawn on an account with initially insufficient funds and the sellers later refused to close. The buyer sought specific performance, damages, and cancellation of a lease, while the sellers sought discharge of a mortgage given as security for the deposit and other relief. The trial judge dismissed the buyer's bill after finding the sellers justified in refusing performance due to the inability to certify or cash the check within the expected timeframe, and the appellate court affirmed that result (with modification to eliminate an award of counsel fees), holding that the buyer had breached by failing to ensure the deposit was available and that any issues regarding a mortgage alienation clause were not relied upon or material to the outcome.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a patient's lawsuit against a surgeon for alleged malpractice during and around a tonsillectomy, with claims in both tort and contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to perform routine preoperative blood and urine tests, improperly chose local anesthesia, and mishandled postoperative bleeding, leading to complications including transfusions, jaundice, and kidney infection. The trial judge directed verdicts for the defendant on all counts after the plaintiff's evidence, but the appellate court sustained the plaintiff's exceptions. It held that the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on negligence and causation regarding the missing preoperative tests, and that the trial court erred in excluding certain testimony and a hypothetical question about whether test results would have contraindicated the surgery. The court reasoned that the absence of records, combined with expert standards requiring such tests and inferences from later results, could support findings that proper testing might have prevented the operation or its harms.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice tort action brought by a patient against Boston City Hospital, Dr. Branca, and other medical staff after radiation treatments for multiple myeloma caused severe skin damage, ulcers, infection, and eventual amputation of the patient's leg. A jury returned verdicts for the plaintiff, but the trial judge granted the defendants' motions for verdicts in their favor under leave reserved, and the appeals court upheld that ruling by overruling the plaintiff's exceptions. The core issue involved whether any negligence by an unlicensed or unregistered physician (Dr. Gonzalez) in administering the treatments was causally connected to the harm, with the court finding no such causal link because the overall treatment plan had been reviewed and concurred in by licensed physicians, followed accepted medical practice, and would not have differed even if the registration issue had not arisen. The court applied precedents holding that statutory violations like improper registration constitute negligence only if they contribute to the injury, which was not shown here.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a contract action by Gordon Chemical Co., Inc. to recover business interruption losses under an insurance policy after a 1963 fire and explosion damaged its manufacturing plant, halting production of polystyrene for fifteen months. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $211,350 on a case stated, and the appellate court affirmed that order. The insurer argued that the policy's resumption-of-operations clause required Gordon to mitigate by buying polystyrene on the open market and reselling it to a related company, Hammond Plastics, Inc., which would have eliminated any loss. The court held that purchasing and reselling finished product was not a resumption of Gordon's manufacturing operations under the policy language, and that the separate corporations named in the policy remained distinct legal entities with separate interests.

business & regulatory

This case involved the appeal of convictions on two counts of attempted extortion under Massachusetts law, based on evidence that the defendant and an associate threatened a man named Najarian with violence on two separate occasions to collect a $4,000 debt allegedly owed to Lou Ricci. The defendant challenged the denial of a motion for exculpatory evidence, argued that the two incidents constituted a single continuing offense that should have been charged in one count, contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove the required elements of malicious threats to extort money, and raised issues of joint enterprise liability and variances between the proof and bill of particulars. The court held that the motion was properly denied, the two threats and demands with separate deadlines qualified as distinct offenses that could be separately charged, the evidence including context and circumstances was sufficient for the jury to find guilt on both counts, and the remaining claims lacked merit or were not properly preserved. The judgments were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a divorced couple where the husband petitioned to modify the support and alimony provisions of their divorce decree, which had incorporated a separation agreement requiring him to pay the wife up to half his net income plus child support; he argued the agreement was collusive and against public policy due to a clause not to contest the divorce, and that financial circumstances had changed. The probate judge denied the petition after reviewing the parties' finances and concluding that the existing payment terms remained equitable and reasonable. The court affirmed, holding that modification of the decree did not require invalidating the agreement itself, as the probate court retains independent authority under state law to adjust alimony and support provisions regardless of the parties' contract, and the judge properly based the decision solely on current fairness without addressing the agreement's validity.

family law

In this tort case, the plaintiff sought damages after his car was struck by a spare tire that fell from a passing tractor-trailer on the Connecticut Turnpike, and he identified the truck by a Hertz insignia. The trial court admitted the plaintiff's testimony about the truck's registration certificate and a certified copy of a Connecticut traffic court record naming Hertz as the owner, over the defendant's objections. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that both pieces of evidence violated the hearsay rule and best evidence rule, as they were offered to prove ownership without proper foundation or authentication as official records. Without this evidence there was insufficient proof that Hertz owned the truck, so the erroneous evidentiary rulings were prejudicial. The court therefore sustained the defendant's exceptions and ordered a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a real estate broker suing the estate of a property owner for an unpaid commission after the owner sold land that the broker had listed and shown to potential buyers. The trial court recorded a jury verdict for the broker, and both parties appealed on procedural and substantive grounds. The appeals court overruled the broker's exceptions regarding the timeliness of the estate's bill of exceptions, reasoning that the death of an interim administrator tolled deadlines without prejudice to the plaintiff and that statutes reflected legislative intent for flexibility in such situations. It also overruled the estate's exceptions to the denial of directed verdict motions, holding that the evidence permitted the jury to find the broker's efforts were the efficient cause of the sale, even though the transaction was structured between two buyers to avoid paying the commission. Both parties' exceptions were overruled, upholding the verdict.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory