Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Case Information

Filed 2023-06-30
Status Argued, under advisement
Type Civil
Docket 24 entries

Docket Entries

  1. Entered.
  2. ANNOUNCEMENT: The Justices are soliciting amicus briefs. Whether to revisit the existing framework for assessing special motions to dismiss filed under the anti-SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H; including, with respect to stage two, (a) whether a non-movant must show that every single alleged act of petitioning was a sham in order to meet its burden under the first path; (b) whether to revisit the existing standard of proof, as set forth in Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543, 553-554 (2001), or consider alternative standards of proof, including, e.g., a prima facie standard, for assessing whether a non-movant has met its burden under the first path; and (c) whether to retain the second path, as set forth in Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 477 Mass. 141, 160-161 (2017), by which a non-movant may meet its burden. (Note that this case will be argued with SJC-13405, Columbia Plaza Associates vs. Northeastern).
  3. NOTICE of September argument sent.
  4. Motion to file new brief filed for Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., Albert Todesca and Paul Todesca by Attorney Michael Rabieh.
  5. ORDER: The appellants' motion to file a new brief is ALLOWED. The appellants' brief and appendix shall be due on or before August 18, 2023. The appellees' brief shall be due on or before September 18, 2023. Oral argument shall be scheduled for the October sitting of the Court. By the Court.
  6. NOTICE of October argument sent.
  7. Appellant brief filed for Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., Albert Todesca and Paul Todesca by Attorney Michael Rabieh.
  8. Appendix filed for Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc. by Attorney Michael Rabieh.
  9. Motion to accept late filing filed for Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., Albert Todesca and Paul Todesca by Attorney Michael Rabieh. (ALLOWED)
  10. The clerk's office has received the appellant's brief and appendix through e-fileMA. The brief and appendix have been accepted for filing and entered on the docket. The appellant shall file with the clerk 4 copies of the brief and 3 copies of appendix within 7 days. The clerk's office may require additional copies if necessary. (Cover of appellant's brief shall be blue and cover of appendix shall be white.)
  11. Certificate of service filed for Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., Albert Todesca and Paul Todesca by Attorney Michael Rabieh.
  12. ORDERED for argument on October 2.
  13. Additional 4 copies of appellant's brief and 3 copies of appendix filed by Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc. & others.
  14. Amicus brief filed for NAIOP Massachusetts by Attorney Robert Ross.
  15. The clerk's office has received the amicus brief filed for NAIOP Massachusetts through e-fileMA. The brief has been accepted for filing and entered on the docket. The amicus shall file with the clerk 4 copies of the brief within 5 days. The clerk's office may require additional copies if necessary. (Note: Cover of amicus brief shall be green.)
  16. Amicus brief filed for New England First Amendment Coalition by Attorney Jeffrey Pyle.
  17. The clerk's office has received the amicus brief through e-fileMA. The brief has been accepted for filing and entered on the docket. The amicus curiae (New England First Amendment Coalition) shall file with the clerk 4 copies of the brief within 5 days. The clerk's office may require additional copies if necessary. (Cover of amicus brief shall be green.)
  18. Additional 4 copies of amicus brief filed by NAIOP Massachusetts.
  19. Additional 4 copies of amicus brief filed by New England First Amendment Coalition.
  20. Appellee brief filed for Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. and Edgewood Development Co., LLC by Attorney Lauren Galvin.
  21. The clerk's office has received the appellee's brief through e-fileMA. The brief has been accepted for filing and entered on the docket. The appellee shall file with the clerk 4 copies of the brief within 5 days. The clerk's office may require additional copies if necessary. (NOTE: The cover of the brief shall be red.)
  22. Additional 4 copies of appellee's brief filed by Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. & another.
  23. Oral argument held. (Budd, C.J., Gaziano, J., Lowy, J., Kafker, J., Wendlandt, J., Georges, Jr., J.). View Webcast
  24. NOTICE: The video recording of the oral argument in this matter has been posted to the SJC YouTube archive. Subscribe and view: https://www.youtube.com/c/massachusettssupremejudicialcourt.

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.