Background: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Jose Shaw’s firearm sentence enhancement but clarified an important evidentiary requirement for proving prior convictions. A court seal and what appears to be a clerk-magistrate’s stamped signature can identify where a docket copy came from, the court held, but they do not by themselves establish that the copy was…
Held: Chief Justice Budd, writing for a unanimous court, concluded that the docket copy was not self-authenticating. Rule 40(a)(1) permits an official Massachusetts record to be proved by an official publication or by a copy “attested” by the officer who has legal custody of it or that officer’s deputy. Drawing on prior cases, the SJC explained that attestation means a written…
Background: In 1976, Edwin L. Langston was convicted of first-degree felony murder as an aider and abettor to an armed robbery and fatal shooting, receiving a sentence of life without parole (LWOP). His conviction was initially reversed by the Court of Appeals due to improper jury instructions regarding the mens rea for felony murder. However, the…
Held: The Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory LWOP for pre-Aaron felony-murder convictions constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Article 1, § 16 of the Michigan Constitution if two conditions are met. First, the defendant must establish that the jury was not instructed on malice as defined by *Aaron*. If this is shown, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove…
Background: A restaurant, Estiatorio Fili, Inc., sought a liquor license for its property at 225 Waterman Street in Providence. Under a state law, nearby property owners, including Myles Standish Associates, LP, had the right to object, and their objection effectively blocked the license. In response, Estiatorio successfully lobbied the Rhode Island General Assembly to pass a…
Held: The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that the special act was unconstitutional and void. The Court found that the law, by its own terms, was not a general law applying to all cities. Instead, it was an act "in relation to the property, affairs and government" of a particular city—Providence. The law specifically named the…
Background: Durkan Estates Limited (Durkan) and Wallace Estates Limited (Wallace) entered a Remediation Agreement on 1 July 2024, obliging Durkan to remedy defects at Centrillion Point, Croydon, under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). This agreement followed a First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) remediation order (RO) issued against Wallace, requiring completion of remedial works by 31 May 2025,…
Held: The provided Approved Judgment meticulously outlines the legal framework for determining Wallace's application for summary judgment. It elaborates on the criteria for granting summary judgment under CPR r 24.3, emphasizing the need for a "realistic" rather than "fanciful" prospect of success and the avoidance of "mini-trials." The judgment then delves into the nuances of repudiatory and anticipatory breach, including the…
Background: The case originated from a report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which concluded that the then Prime Minister had not violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) concerning two funding decisions involving the WE Charity. Democracy Watch initiated an application for judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeal, contending that the…
Held: The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, unequivocally stating that the power to review the legality of delegated governmental authority is exclusively vested in the courts. This authority, derived from the judicature provisions (sections 96 to 101) of the Constitution Act, 1867, guarantees the availability of "legality review" for all aspects of an administrative decision, ensuring that every exercise…
Background: The Utah Supreme Court held that a district court terminating parental rights under the Utah Adoption Act must determine that termination is strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest. The court imported that demanding protection from Utah’s Termination and Restoration of Parental Rights Act by reading the two statutes together. Strict necessity requires an…
Held: Chief Justice Durrant’s majority opinion concluded that strict necessity applies. The Adoption Act allows termination when there are sufficient grounds and termination serves the child’s best interest. Reading “grounds” in harmony with the Termination Act incorporates that statute’s two-part framework: at least one statutory basis for termination and a finding that termination is strictly necessary. The Adoption Act’s separate best-interest…
Background: The petitioners, members of the Almahdi family, live in an unrecognized Bedouin settlement cluster in Israel's Negev region. The Authority for Development and Settlement of the Bedouin in the Negev (the "Bedouin Authority"), a state body, formulated a settlement plan to relocate them to a planned neighborhood in the recognized town of Abu Qrenat. The…
Held: The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, denied the petition and upheld the Bedouin Authority's relocation plan. The court found that the Authority's decision was not arbitrary and fell within the bounds of reasonableness and proportionality. It deferred to the Authority's professional judgment as the administrative body responsible for the complex and systemic issue of Bedouin settlement…
Background: The plaintiffs, Jianping Qiu and Jingjing Lin, invested a total of $1 million in the Jarrah Capital 2005 Loan Trust. The investment was presented as an opportunity to participate in a loan for a property development project near the future Western Sydney airport, with the investment supposedly secured by a registered mortgage on the property.…
Held: The Supreme Court of New South Wales found the defendants liable for misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the ASIC Act, as well as for the tort of deceit. The Court held that Mr. Chen made misleading oral representations to the plaintiffs about the nature and security of the investment. More significantly, the Court found that all defendants were…
Background: Yusef B. Allen was convicted of murder for the 1997 shooting death of Lannie Silver, Jr. The State's key witness, Ruby Waller, testified that she saw Allen holding a gun moments before the shooting. Waller had prior drug convictions and a pending shoplifting charge at the time of her testimony, but stated she expected no…
Held: The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the materiality standards under Brady and Carter are not the same. The Court clarified that the standard for newly discovered evidence under Carter is more stringent than the standard for suppressed prosecutorial evidence under Brady. However, it affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that Allen had not met even the more lenient Brady…
Background: After Sean Tilton was injured in a car crash, his physician, Dr. Christopher Lawinski, treated him with low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Dr. Lawinski billed Tilton's no-fault auto insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), for the treatments under Tilton's personal injury protection (PIP) plan. USAA contested the claim and paid only a fraction of the billed…
Held: The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, agreeing that USAA was not required to pay for the LLLT treatment. However, the court corrected the ICA's reasoning, holding that the controlling statute, HRS § 431:10C-103.5(a), is unambiguous. The court explained that the statute plainly sets forth two distinct conditions for a treatment to be a covered…
Background: In 2008, the appellant, Mr. Kaploniak, received a two-year suspended sentence in Poland. The following year, he committed another fraud-type offense (the "triggering offence"). He signed a formal consent agreeing to a conviction and a 10-month suspended sentence for this new offence, under a Polish procedure that does not require the accused's presence in court.…
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's order for surrender. The Court held that the appellant's argument was misconceived. The legal analysis of a trial conducted in absentia under the European Arrest Warrant Act focuses on "the trial resulting in the decision." In this case, that was the trial for the triggering offence, not the later…
Background: Theresa and Christopher Abel experienced a sewage backup in the basement of their Baltimore home on December 28 and 29, 2019. A clog in the City’s main sewer line caused the backup. City workers arrived approximately 17 hours after the Abels first called 311, and the water stopped backing up about 15 minutes later. The…
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed. It held that private-nuisance liability requires consideration of both the significance of the interference with the plaintiff’s reasonable use and enjoyment of land and the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct or use of property. The defendant must have engaged in wrongful conduct. That conduct may be negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous, or it may…