标题: Supreme Judicial court (SJC) [打印本页] 作者: choi 时间: 5-6-2014 15:28 标题: Supreme Judicial court (SJC) is the highest court of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
commonwealth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth
(section 1 Etymology; section 4.1 US states)
(a) SJC boasts the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court (since 1692) in Western hemisphere. The emphasis is “continuously.”
(b) I am not familiar with the English judiciary, so have no idea what happens to the latter.
(c) I also do not know what is the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in EASTERN hemisphere.
(d) A trial court rather than an appellate court, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (namely Manhattan, which is the original county of state of New York) “traces its origins to the year 1691 and is one of the oldest continuously-serving courts of general jurisdiction in the United States,” according to its web site.
(2) Main also has the highest state court of the same name. The reason:
“Maine was part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts until 1820 when it voted to secede from Massachusetts. On March 15, 1820, it was admitted to the Union as the 23rd state under the Missouri Compromise.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine
(3) Today I went to SJC for oral argument of my case. Bt chance the first case was Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association v Tesla. I did not know until I heard the oral argument: each side has ten minutes: appellant first and appellee second. Apparently it was about auto dealership. When lawyer for the appellee argues, he broached Tesla. After that case was over, most spectators walked out. It turns out that auto dealers of this Commonwealth tried to block Testa from directly selling autos to consumers, which Tesla has been doing since December 2012. Reportedly this is MSADA’s third attempt to sue tesla. I do not know why MSADA failed the first two, but this time superior court dismissed its lawsuit (so merit of the case was not decided), ruling that it did not have standing to sue. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93B (whose title is “Regulation of Business Practices Between Motor Vehicle manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers”), section 14 (“Enforcement[:] Upon the written request of a motor vehicle dealer, manufacturer or distributor, the attorney general may enforce compliance with this chapter in accordance with sections 4 to 8, inclusive, of chapter 93A”)
In other words, the plain language is that only attorney general of the commonwealth can sue for violations.
At SJC, the argument revolved around the standing, not the merit.
(4) My case was the last on the list, because it was hastily added less than a month ago by SJC. Usually it takes SJC months, sometimes years (see next), to put a case on the list for oral argument. SJC has a self-imposed rule to make a decision within four months after oral argument. But my case is important--both to me and to local governments of the commonwealth--SJC put it on the agenda as soon as it possibly could.
(5) SJC has an unusual feature among appellate courts in the world, allowing litigants to bring lawsuits there, bypassing lower courts. The drawback is there is no discovery: depositions etc (so lawsuits there at SJC are mainly about law, not facts). I filed on in February 1998, which was not heard until two and a half (2 ½) years later (and said I lost).
(b) Today I said little to present my case, stopped, saw no reaction, and said, “I am ready for questions.” Surprised, the chief justice, who sat in the middle, looked to his right and left and asked whether his colleagues (officially, associate justices) had any question. Everybody shook head. Appellee’s turn, who talked 30 seconds, also rested. Two associate justices asked quick questions; appellee answered. The bailiff (a black woman) ordered, “All arise.” (The gallery was empty.) Everybody stood up (meaning justices, appellee and me.) After ten seconds or so, I, still standing, asked the bailiff, “Can I leave?” and simultaneously moving my index finger and middle finger as if walking. An official gestured me to stay. The bailiff recited an incantation. I have not seen anything like this. There is no such thing in federal district court or court of appeals (I heard that in US supreme court, at the beginning of the court day, an official will say something). In Massachusetts state court, superior court will open without fanfare, but the district court will start when a bailiff says, “All rise. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. Honorable so-and-so is presiding,” or most commonly:
Val Wang, Hear ye, hear ye! OpenCourt, May 16, 2011.
opencourt.wbur.org/2011/05/hear-ye-hear-ye
However, I did not know of any court that chants at the end of the business.