Attorney Jen Chase Chiasson's Legal Cases

Litigation

Nikas v. Town of Barnstable

Nov 17, 2008

OUTCOME: Favorable Settlement

The plaintiff sued the Town and its police officers for Constitutional violations during his arrest. We obtained a favorable settlement before trial.

Lawsuits and disputes

Murphy v. Grey, et al.

Sep 07, 2007

OUTCOME: Won Summary Judgment on All Claims

This case involved the departure of a minority shareholder from a close corporation, and the application of provisions of a shareholders' buy-sell agreement. The minority shareholder alleged that he w ... as entitled to have the corporation buy back his shares, and that the majority shareholders breached their fiduciary duties by freezing him out of the corporation. Attorney White and I argued that the buy-back provisions of the agreement were inapplicable, and that there was no evidence of a freeze-out, as the departing shareholder was terminated for a legitimate business reason. In a thoughtful decision by Judge Botsford, written just before her elevation to the Supreme Judicial Court, we won summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.

Defective and dangerous products

Tilton v. Unocal

Jul 25, 2005

OUTCOME: Plaintiff's judgment affirmed on appeal

Primary author of a winning brief in the Appeals Court concerning application of the (then) newly adopted "bulk supplier" doctrine in a significant personal injury case. The plaintiff was severely inj ... ured as a result of an explosion that occurred when he touched an acetylene torch to an unlabeled 55-gallon drum that contained, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the highly volatile chemical Toluene. Holding that the Superior Court (Borenstein, J.) had correctly applied and instructed the jury on the bulk supplier doctrine, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment against Unocal, the supplier of the Toluene. Also drafted a successful opposition to Unocal's Application to the Supreme Judicial Court for Further Appellate Review.

Appeals

Shrewsbury v. Seaport Partners Ltd. Partnership, et al.

Apr 15, 2004

OUTCOME: Success on Appeal re Novel Lis Pendens Issue

This case involved a condominium development. The trustees of the development brought suit against the developer for alleged defects in the building and attempted to obtain an attachment on property ow ... ned by the developer, as well as to record memoranda of lis pendens on the developer's property. In response to the trustees' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Superior Court held in the defendants' favor on all issues, denying the motion for attachment and the lis pendens. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of lis pendens to a single justice of the Appeals Court. Because the case involved a novel issue of law regarding the application of the amended lis pendens statute, the Single Justice referred the case to a full panel of the Court. We argued that lis pendens were inappropriate in the case because the trustees' claims did not involve a claim of right to title of the developer's property -- the trustees simply wanted to encumber property owned by the developer as a form of security and settlement leverage with respect to their underlying claims for alleged defects in their own property. The Appeals Court held in favor of the defendants, and affirmed the denial of the motion for lis pendens.

Appeals

Martin v. Roy

May 08, 2002

OUTCOME: Success on Appeal

Martin v. Roy involved a claim of defamation by a college professor against a student journalist. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaint ... iff was bound by a stipulation that he was a public figure.

Civil rights

Kosilek v. Maloney

Jan 01, 2002

OUTCOME: Vindication

We represented a transsexual prisoner who sued the Commissioner of the Department of Correction for constitutional violations based on the DOC's failure to provide standard treatment for gender dysphor ... ia, also known as gender identity disorder (GID). After a high profile, several week bench trial in Federal Court, we obtained a ruling favorable to the plaintiff; although Judge Mark Wolf held that the DOC had not yet violated the Eighth Amendment by its failure to provide treatment in accordance with the accepted standard of care, he also cautioned that any continuing refusal to provide such treatment, after notice by the court that such treatment was required, would amount to a violation.