Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court traces its history back to the high court of the British Province of Massachusetts Bay, which was chartered in 1692.Under the terms of that charter, Governor Sir William Phips established the Superior Court of Judicature as the province's local court of last resort (some of the court's decisions could be appealed to courts in England).
The state's high court now says individuals 18 to 20 years of age at the time they committed murder cannot be sentenced to life without parole. Opinion: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling ...
Written opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court typically come within 130 days after oral arguments, potentially past the end-of-year deadline for 106 MBTA communities to pass zoning rules.
Residents of Massachusetts are now free to arm themselves with switchblades after a 67-year-old restriction was struck down following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark decision on gun ...
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. [7] Citing District of Columbia v.Heller [8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago, [9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ...
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will decide not just whether to side with Bruce Johnson or Caroline Settino but whether to modernize the New England state's law on engagement rings and ...
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]