Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decisions
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is one of the oldest state supreme courts in the U.S. It was known as the Superior Court of Judicature when it was founded in 1692. Three of its chief justices have served on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has the authority to review appeals of criminal and civil cases, and it holds the unusual power to provide advisory opinions. The executive branch or the legislative branch may request these opinions. The site of the Court is the John Adams Courthouse in Boston.
There are no specific requirements for becoming a justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. A justice simply must be under 70 years old and maintain good behavior while serving on the Court. The Governor of Massachusetts appoints each of the seven justices on the Court, although they also must be approved by the executive council. In contrast to the supreme courts in many other states, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does not impose term limits on its justices. Once they are appointed, they may serve until they turn 70, at which age they are required to retire. The same rules apply to the appointment and tenure of the Chief Justice as to the six Associate Justices.
However, a judge may face removal from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for reasons related to misconduct or a disability. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct will investigate any complaint of misconduct by a justice, and it will hold a formal hearing and provide a recommendation on whether the justice should be removed or face other discipline. A justice who engages in misconduct also may face removal by impeachment in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and conviction in the Massachusetts Senate. In other situations, the Governor may remove a justice with the approval of the Governor’s Council and with the joint address of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- 2024 (31)
- 2023 (129)
- 2022 (148)
- 2021 (156)
- 2020 (194)
- 2019 (196)
- 2018 (210)
- 2017 (204)
- 2016 (187)
- 2015 (208)
- 2014 (204)
- 2013 (203)
- 2012 (201)
- 2011 (127)
- 2010 (81)
- 2006 (1)
- 2004 (2)
- 2003 (1)
- 2002 (1)
- 2001 (1)
- 1997 (2)
- 1996 (2)
- 1994 (165)
- 1993 (196)
- 1992 (201)
- 1991 (202)
- 1990 (208)
- 1989 (197)
- 1988 (202)
- 1987 (216)
- 1986 (202)
- 1985 (222)
- 1984 (227)
- 1983 (221)
- 1982 (214)
- 1981 (186)
- 1980 (190)
- 1979 (178)
- 1978 (208)
- 1977 (202)
- 1976 (223)
- 1975 (200)
- 1974 (153)
- 1973 (126)
- 1972 (184)
- 1971 (177)
- 1970 (187)
- 1969 (174)
- 1968 (183)
- 1967 (184)
- 1966 (158)
- 1965 (179)
- 1964 (148)
- 1963 (158)
- 1962 (192)
- 1961 (204)
- 1960 (179)
- 1959 (203)
- 1958 (184)
- 1957 (174)
- 1956 (199)
- 1955 (183)
- 1954 (148)
- 1953 (141)
- 1952 (188)
- 1951 (198)
- 1950 (200)
- 1942 (1)
- 1933 (1)
- 1891 (1)
- 1886 (1)
Recent Decisions From the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: March 14, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13472
Justia Opinion Summary: In a dispute between tenured faculty members and Tufts University, the faculty members alleged that the university's policies requiring them to cover half of their salary with external research funding and reducing their…
Date: March 13, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13428
Justia Opinion Summary: The case revolves around a defendant convicted of severe, racially motivated violence, who sought to stay the execution of his sentence pending appeal. The defendant, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Morocco, with frequent…
Date: March 8, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13434
Justia Opinion Summary: In 2018, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the "Tobacco Act," which prohibited the sale of tobacco products to anyone under 21 years old. The town of Brookline later passed an ordinance that divided potential tobacco…
Date: March 7, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13473
Justia Opinion Summary: The court examined a case involving a divorcing couple, Amy Sue Openshaw and Glen Romney Openshaw, who had a custom of regularly saving a portion of their income throughout their marriage. The husband contested the…
Date: March 4, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13440
Justia Opinion Summary: In this case, the plaintiff, Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., adopted a policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The defendant, Shanika Jefferson, a home health aide employed by Fallon, sought…
Date: February 29, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13405
Justia Opinion Summary: The dispute arose from an agreement between Columbia Plaza Associates (CPA) and Northeastern University regarding the development of a parcel of land in Boston. The contract stipulated that the developer for each phase…
Date: February 29, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13460
Justia Opinion Summary: In a complex commercial dispute with a series of administrative and legal challenges, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the defendants did not meet the criteria to dismiss the case under the…
Date: February 22, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-12405
Justia Opinion Summary: In the case of Commonwealth v. Rashad Shepherd, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, with attempted unarmed robbery…
Date: February 21, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13422
Justia Opinion Summary: In the case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the defendant, William J. Camuti, was convicted of murder in the first degree for poisoning his friend and business associate, Stephen Rakes, with potassium…
Date: February 20, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13499
Justia Opinion Summary: The case involves the Commonwealth's appeal against the trial judge's denial of its motion to admit expert testimony on Frequent Location History (FLH) data retrieved from the defendant's cell phone in a murder case. The…
Date: February 14, 2024
Docket Number: SJC-13465
Justia Opinion Summary: In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was called upon to determine which law applied to the sealing of records from youthful offender proceedings - G. L. c. 276, § 100A, the adult criminal record…
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.