|
Briefs
Bringing
lack of modesty to never-before seen heights, Engel & Schultz firmly
believes that no-one writes better legal briefs than it does. As the proof is
in the product, the firm shall periodically set forth briefs and memoranda on
this web site which it has drafted. While no-one who is not being punished
should be required to read any lengthy legal writing, the firm nevertheless
recognizes that one of the best ways to evaluate the quality of a firm’s work
is to be able to review for oneself its past legal products. You will need
the Adobe Acrobat Reader to open these files. Click below to download it now.
Rogers v. Mills
In the case of Rogers v. Mills, Stephen Schultz, then Administrative and Lead
Counsel to the Massachusetts Attorney General, represented the Massachusetts
Department of Mental Health and sixteen psychiatrists defending their right
to medicate patients against their expressed will with antipsychotic
medications after the patients had been committed to the state's hospitals.
Mr. Schultz both defended the case at trial and handled the case through its
appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Click here for the brief.
Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue
In the case of Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue, the firm challenged the
constitutionality of a change in the capital gains tax which did took effect
in the middle of the tax year. The firm wrote four briefs to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its successful three year effort to
have the law declared unconstitutional.
Click here for the
first brief.
Click here for the
second brief.
Click here for the
third brief.
Click here for the
fourth brief.
Herwins v. City of Revere
In the case of Herwins v. City of Revere, the firm represented a landlord
whose property had been shut down by a City without a hearing following a
long personal vendetta with a city official. The firm, representing Mr.
Herwins, had won at trial. The City of Revere appealed to the First Circuit
Court of Appeals, which overturned the trial court ruling that Mr. Herwins
had no constitutional right to a hearing. The firm's Petition to the United
States Supreme Court to review the First Circuit's decision is attached.
Click here for the brief.
Berish v. Bornstein
In the case of Berish v. Bornstein, the firm represented the Cotuit Bay
Condominium Association in a suit against the developer for defective
construction. The case raised the issue of whether a developer should be held
to have implied a warranty of habitability or fitness in the common areas of
a condominium when selling individual units of the condominium property. The
case was successfully argued to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Click here for the brief.
Tisbury Fuel Service, Inc. v. Martha's Vineyard Commission
In the case of Tisbury Fuel Service, Inc. v. Martha's Vineyard Commission,
the firm challenged the Commission's denial of an application to build a gas
station which would provide name brand gasoline at a guaranteed price, which
would be markedly cheaper than price at which gasoline was being sold on the
Island. The case is currently under advisement after a six day trial.
Click here to view the Proposed
Findings of Fact and Law prepared by the firm.
Engel & Schultz, LLP
265 Franklin Street, Suite 1801 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (617) 951-9980 Fax: (617) 951-0048
mail@engelschultz.com
©
2006 Engel & Schultz, LLP
The material contained herein may be considered
advertising by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
|
