Herbert P. Wilkins

The case involved a plaintiff who was injured at a New England Patriots football game in Foxborough when fans carrying part of a goalpost caused it to touch a high-voltage power line; he sued the town for failing to provide adequate police protection and prevent the removal of the goalpost from the stadium, obtaining a $100,000 judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment against the town. The core reasoning was that a 1993 amendment to G.L. c. 258, § 10, which bars claims against municipalities for failure to provide police protection or prevent harmful consequences of third-party conduct, applied retroactively to this pending case and granted the town immunity, as confirmed in the companion decision Carleton v. Framingham. The court rejected arguments for exceptions based on the town's revenue from the event or paid police details, applying the statute as written. The settlement with a private security company did not moot the claim against the town due to the statutory cap.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved claims by the families of two people killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver, alleging that a Framingham police officer was negligent in failing to investigate or take the driver into protective custody after encountering him shortly before the crash. A jury found the town liable on multiple negligence theories and awarded damages, but the Appeals Court ordered a new trial on some issues related to discretionary functions and causation. On further review, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a 1993 legislative amendment to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, adding immunity provisions under G.L. c. 258, § 10(j) and related sections for harms caused by third-party conduct, applied retroactively to bar the claims against the town. The court reasoned that the statute's retroactive application was constitutional because it was reasonable and necessary to address public policy concerns about municipal liability without violating due process or contracts clause protections.

torts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted under Massachusetts' new stalking statute, G. L. c. 265, § 43, after repeated harassing phone calls and threats to his ex-wife in violation of a restraining order; he challenged the statute as facially vague. The court held that the statute was unconstitutionally vague because the definition of "harasses" in subsection (d) could be read to require that a defendant engage in multiple patterns of conduct or series of acts, rather than a single such pattern or series combined with a threat, creating uncertainty about what conduct was prohibited. It therefore reversed the stalking conviction but affirmed the convictions for violating the restraining order and announced a prospective construction of the statute to clarify that a single pattern or series suffices. The court found the facial vagueness claim adequately preserved despite procedural issues.

criminal law

The case involved a lawsuit by Paul Mulford against his coemployee Joseph Mangano for injuries sustained when Mulford fell from Mangano's car in the restaurant parking lot after work. Mangano sought summary judgment claiming immunity under the Massachusetts workers' compensation act as a coemployee acting in the course of employment. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment, holding that coemployee immunity requires the defendant to have been acting in the course of employment under the same standard as for workers' compensation benefits. The court reasoned that Mangano's presence at the restaurant was partly for personal reasons like watching a basketball game, and not sufficiently tied to his job duties as a cook, so factual issues precluded summary judgment on immunity.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned whether landlords could refuse to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple based on their religious beliefs that such cohabitation is sinful, in violation of a Massachusetts statute prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of marital status. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the landlords, finding the statute's application unconstitutional. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the landlords violated the anti-discrimination law but that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the constitutional claims, vacating the judgment because further factual development was needed to assess whether the statute substantially burdened the landlords' religious exercise and if it was the least restrictive means to achieve the state's interests.

religious libertycivil rightsproperty

The case concerned a challenge by plaintiffs to the Massachusetts Attorney General's certification of an initiative petition for "An Act for Initiative and Referendum Reform," which would restrict the use of corporate funds to support or oppose ballot questions while permitting corporations to create separate funds for such purposes. The plaintiffs argued that the proposal was inconsistent with rights protected under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of peaceable assembly, and also contested the Attorney General's summary and form of the petition. The court affirmed the Attorney General's certification, allowing the measure to proceed to the Legislature and potentially to voters. The core reasoning focused on the Attorney General's limited role in certification under Article 48, the fact that the proposal permitted alternative means of corporate political expression through separate funds, and the determination that the initiative did not abridge the relevant state constitutional rights as they exist under Massachusetts law, drawing on but not being bound by federal precedents.

electionsfree speech