Search for: "MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT" Results 121 - 140 of 4,490
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2023, 7:45 am by Legal Profession Prof
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed an 18-month suspension of an attorney. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 7:34 am by Dan Bressler
“Ethics Committee Advice for Justices whose Staff Attorneys Had Prior Involvement in a Matter” — “The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has issued an expedited opinion about the obligations of an appellate justice whose staff attorney previously practiced as counsel in civil cases challenging conditions of criminal confinement. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by Ronald M. Levin
In the Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion that overturned that decision. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 1:48 am by Seán Binder
  DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS – TRUMP LEGAL MATTERS The Georgia Supreme Court yesterday rejected a motion by former President Trump’s lawyers to effectively end the criminal investigation into efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat in Georgia. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
 Judge Michael Ponsor is a US District Court Judge in Massachusetts. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 11:32 am by Legal Profession Prof
A decision in the closely-watched bar discipline matter involving serious prosecutorial misconduct, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers has recommended sanctions against three attorneys. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 7:03 am by Legal Profession Prof
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a criminal conviction In these gang-related retaliatory murder cases, a juror did not disclose that she had a half-brother who was serving a sentence for a similar crime. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 8:32 am by Legal Profession Prof
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the disposition of law firm breakup litigation The plaintiff is a Boston law firm that specializes in personal injury cases. [read post]
4 Jul 2023, 6:57 am by Randy E. Barnett
The Declaration had to be explained away–quite unconvincingly–by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 9:46 am by Katharine O. Beattie
  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that, once an employer is on notice of an incident of discrimination or harassment, they have an affirmative duty to investigate and resolve the situation. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 8:52 am by Haley Proctor
After persuading the Supreme Court to reverse a judgment against her two weeks ago in Haaland v. [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 8:10 am by Michael C. Dorf
In dissent, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the Supreme Court has “allowed the use of race when that use burdens minority populations. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 11:10 am by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that prosecutors do not need to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, even after a defendant argued that the identity may assist in mounting a defense against charged crimes. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
National/Federal How Judges Navigate Offers of Free Lunch, Trips and NBA Tickets Bloomberg Law – Zoe Tillman (Bloomberg News) | Published: 6/25/2023 Recent controversies over perks accepted by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have raised questions not only about the justices’ conduct off the bench and what they disclose to the public, but also about how the judiciary broadly enforces ethics. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:34 pm by Ilya Somin
  By 1787 and 1788, state supreme courts had, as Chief Justice Roberts points out, exercised the power of judicial review. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 7:13 am by Legal Profession Prof
The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice's denial of an applicant's petition to sit for the Bar examination The single justice observed that persons desiring admission to the bar of the Commonwealth are subject to the requirements... [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
Superior Court, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a non-resident defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state in virtue of having been served with process while physically present within the state, even apart from any other contacts the defendant has or doesn't have with the forum state. [read post]