Case Results

Massachusetts RMV Board of Appeals

Client had lost her driver’s license for 5 years as a result of a refusal to submit to a chemical test on a second OUI Offense. Our office appealed the decision to RMV Board of Appeals and took the position that because the first OUI resulted in a continuance without a finding and not a guilty finding that the client had only one prior conviction for purpose of her license suspension and that therefore her license loss should for 2 ½ years and not 5 years. The Board denied the request and upheld the 5 year licensee loss. Our firm then brought an action against the Registry of Motor Vehicles (“RMV”) in Superior Court. After a hearing, wherein the RMV was represented by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, the Court overturned the RMV decision and issued a JUDGMENT for our client, remanded the case back to the Board and ordered them to reinstate the client’s driver’s license.

Read more

Indecent Assault and Battery

The Defendant was charged with 3 Separate Complaints of Indecent Assault and Battery on 3 different victims. After extensive discovery, it was revealed that one alleged victim had made certain statements that seriously questioned the credibility of the allegation and the complaint was DISMISSED. The second case was tried before a jury over two days and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts. The third case was DISMISSED at the request of the government as a result of the second cases not guilty verdict and the facts brought to light during the trial.

Read more

City of Worcester Seeks Injunction Against Our Client

The City of Worcester brought and action against the defendant to enforce certain provisions of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Worcester. Specifically the City sought an injunction against the defendant to replace 1370 square feet of sidewalk based on work he performed on a retaining wall which abutted the sidewalk. The trial was originally scheduled for May 28, 2007 but the City moved for a continuance to perform a survey at the property and secure an expert after the parties could not negotiate a settlement and the Defendant answered ready for trial. The motion to continue was allowed over objection of counsel and the matter was continued for trial. A trial was thereafter held wherein the City called a Health and Code Inspector familiar with the matter and a Professional Land Surveyor. The Defendant was the only witness called by the Defense. The case was important to the client because he was a well known contractor in the city and wanted to let the city know that he would fight for his rights in instances where he believed that the city was being unreasonable. After Proposed Findings were submitted by the Parties the Court issued Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Order for JUDGMENT on behalf of our client. The Court also stated in its Rulings that the Defendant may seek relief against the City under G.L. c.231, §6F, the statute which is entitled, and provides for, costs, expenses and interest for insubstantial, frivolous or bad faith claims or defenses.

Read more

Charged with Operating Under the Influence

The Defendant was charged with Operating Under the Influence and a Marked Lanes Violation. The Commonwealth called one witness and the Defendant called three, including himself. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTYon the OUI and the judge made a finding of NOT RESPONSIBLE on the civil infraction and ordered that the Defendant’s license be restored. The Jury deliberated for approximately twenty minutes before returning a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Read more
Copyright © 2014 · Revelli & Luzzo PC · Attorneys at Law · Criminal Defense · Personal Injury · Family Law · by Bardorf Legal Marketing