Keypoint: Massachusetts’ highest court ruled the use of software that tracks users’ activity on its website does not violate the state’s Wiretap Act, which was intended to prevent the recording or interception of...more
Does G.L. c. 40A, § 3, ¶ 4 “impose[] a per se requirement that all sober homes be treated in all circumstances as would single family homes as a matter of law?” In anticipation of December 2024 oral arguments, the Supreme...more
In a significant decision for website operators, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified that tracking users’ web activity does not constitute illegal wiretapping under the state’s Wiretap Act. The court found that...more
In a closely watched decision, the highest court in Massachusetts has rejected the theory that third-party website tracking technology violates G. L. c. 272, § 99, the Massachusetts Wiretap Act....more
Businesses that use website tracking software to monitor activity for marketing purposes must comply with a growing list of state laws – but does that include a nearly 60-year-old Massachusetts law requiring consent to record...more
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the “SJC”) has held that the state’s wiretap act does not prohibit the tracking of a person’s browsing of and interaction with published information on websites. On behalf of...more
On October 7, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) heard oral arguments from the Attorney General’s Office and the Town of Milton regarding the Town of Milton’s noncompliance with the so-called MBTA Communities Act. For...more
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered “no” to a certified question from the First Circuit Court of Appeals asking whether plaintiff franchisees “‘perform any service’ for 7-Eleven within the meaning of [the...more
Who keeps the engagement ring when the knot is never tied? A new answer to this age-old question may be coming to Massachusetts as the Supreme Judicial Court considers the case of Johnson v. Settino. The engagement ring at...more
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) just delivered a win for franchisor-franchisee relationships. Specifically, the court held that 7-Eleven franchisees are not performing a “service” for their franchisor, meaning...more
On September 5, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) answered a second certified question in Patel, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. (“Patel II”), a long-running case where 7-Eleven franchisees claimed they...more
Sullivan was pleased to file an amicus brief on behalf of NAIOP Massachusetts – The Commercial Real Estate Development Association (NAIOP) in the case of Attorney General v. Town of Milton. The case involves the Town’s...more
In its September 13, 2024 decision in Bodge et al. v. Commonwealth et al., SJC-13567 (2024), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled that an employer’s policy of denying the accrual of certain benefits to...more
On September 13, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) ruled that the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (the “Act”) does not guarantee the accrual of benefits such as sick leave, vacation...more
On September 5, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled in Patel v. 7-Eleven that 7-Eleven franchisees are not employees of the franchisor under the independent contractor statute. The SJC looked beyond...more
In the ever-evolving landscape of employment law, a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) opinion, Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., has shed light on a critical question: When is a franchisee considered an employee of the...more
As coastal erosion continues to shrink beaches, the sand that remains has become ever more valuable; and in Maine, a battle over the beach has reached the state’s highest court. In most coastal states, the intertidal land —...more
On July 20, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) decided Shoucair v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 494 Mass. 319 (2024), which clarified the standard for imposing a bond on a party who appeals the grant of...more
In its decision this morning in Shoucair v. Board of Appeal of Boston, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that in court appeals under § 11 of the Boston Zoning Enabling Act (Section 11), the trial judge can require the...more
On Monday, June 17, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued its decision in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Company, Inc., et al, which interprets the Massachusetts Prompt...more
Conn Kavanaugh’s construction law team recently achieved a successful result at the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) in a decision that will have significant impact for the Massachusetts construction industry....more
On June 17, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion of first impression regarding the Prompt Pay Act, M.G.L. c. 149, §29E, holding that a contractor found to have violated the Prompt Pay Act for...more
On June 17, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued its decision in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Company, Inc. (“Graycor”). The SJC’s decision addresses an...more
On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its first decision interpreting the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (the “PPA”). In Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc.,[1]...more
The Massachusetts Appeals Court just rendered a decision that significantly broadens when one entity may be found to be a “joint employer” of another entity’s employees under state wage laws. The June 13 decision, coupled...more