Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Massachusetts Appeals Court hears six arguments on injunctions, APOs, commitments, settlements and jurisdiction
Summary
A three-judge panel in Boston heard six oral arguments covering a stay of a reinstatement order, an abuse-prevention order dispute, civil-commitment sufficiency, a contested settlement over family photographs, termination-of-parental-rights appeals, and a personal-jurisdiction challenge; no decisions were announced from the bench.
BOSTON — The Massachusetts Appeals Court convened a three-justice panel in Boston and heard oral argument in six separate matters on a packed morning docket.
The first argument, in Joe v. Lynn (docket No. 25844), centered on a defense request to stay or vacate a Superior Court order reinstating a former executive. Attorney Martin, arguing for the appellants, told the panel: "The appellants have a strong likelihood of success on the merits," and urged that the reinstatement order lacks the required equitable findings. The panel questioned whether the matter was properly before them under Rule 6I and how a parallel interlocutory appeal under paragraph two of Rule 118 should be treated or consolidated. Patrick DiNardo, representing the plaintiff, replied that "there's absolutely no abuse of discretion" in the single-justice ruling and emphasized the trial judge's detailed findings. Justices probed whether the order operated like a permanent injunction and whether the lack of specific findings below required reversal or remand for further factfinding.
In an impoundment appeal labeled AB v. SS (No. 25156), the court reviewed a judge's decision not to…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
