Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975

The court vacated the effect of the prior jury verdict and ordered a new trial because the jury had been instructed that the newspaper could be liable without fault. It held that a private plaintiff may recover compensatory damages upon proof of negligent publication, while a public official or public figure must…

The court held that Massachusetts law did not authorize imposing a death sentence for the murder at issue, because restoring a mandatory death penalty after the intervening constitutional ruling would be impermissibly retroactive and could not be judicially reconstructed from the existing statutes.

The court held that the plaintiff's bill stated at least a potentially valid claim for rescission based on his alleged minority and also adequately alleged claims under the private-remedy provisions of chapter 93A.

The court held that a newspaper's unilateral refusal to accept an advertisement, without a monopolistic purpose, concerted action, or other anticompetitive motive or effect, is not an unfair trade practice under G. L. c. 93A.