7 Winthrop Street
Essex, Massachusetts 01929-1203
Highlights of Mr. Derrick's Supreme Court practice include:
-representing Oregon landowners who challenge under the Takings, Contract and Due Process Clauses the State of Oregon’s retroactive repeal of its land use regulations which extinguish their vested rights to develop their land. (Bruner v. Whitman, U.S. Supreme Court No. 11-1422 (federal petition) & Bruner v. Josephine County, U.S. Supreme Court No. 11-1423 (state petition)).(Three Amici Briefs filed).
-challenging the propriety on due process grounds of entering summary judgment against petitioner where it was shown that by negligence, oversight or malfunction, the District Court Clerk’s Office CM/ECF system had failed to file electronically petitioner’s opposition materials. (Dintelman v. Chicot County Mem. Hosp., U.S. Supreme Court No. 11-1284).
-challenging the constitutionality of requiring indigent pro se plaintiffs to file "super filing fees" in the form of affidavits of merit before commencing medical malpractice actions in Michigan. (Jackson v. Mecosta County, Michigan Med. Ctr., U.S. Supreme Court No. 11-1272.)
-challenging refusal by trial judge to charge jury consistent with Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) that reasonableness of police officer’s use of deadly force must be judged "at the moment" he fired third, fatal shot at decedent rather than earlier. (Noel v. Artson et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 11-285).
-questioning whether petitioner in its "class-of-one" suit arising from malicious selective enforcement of governmental regulations must establish virtual identity with its comparators before its claim is recognized. ( Analytical Diagnostic Labs, Inc. v. Kusel, U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-1232).
-seeking resolution of a conflict among the federal circuits for the admission of expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579(1993) (Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co., U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-1122).
-addressing the scope of qualified immunity when the police use deadly force after a vehicular car chase when the victim presented no threat of imminent bodily harm. (Wilkinson v. Torres, U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-781).
-challenging the police invasion of petitioners' home, their subsequent detention and two searches as violative of Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79(1987) because the police knew immediately upon entry that they were in a different home than listed in the search warrant. (Harmon v. Pollock, U.S. Supreme Court No. 09-1195)(Response Ordered by Supreme Court);
-presenting for resolution the intercircuit as well as intracircuit conflict of whether in the wake of Ashcroft v. Iqbal et al., 556 U.S. ___ (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544(2007), a heightened pleading standard should be imposed on civil rights plaintiffs alleging municipal liability under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 659(1978). (Palermo v. Town of North Reading, U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-73);
-challenging New York school officials' denial of the parents' right under IDEA to advocate for and participate in the formulation an appropriate individual education plan for their autistic child. (E.H. and K.H et al. v. Board of Education of Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist. et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 09- 887);
-questioning the jurisdiction of federal district courts to provide on-the-record review of state administrative proceedings in cases based solely on diversity of citizenship. (O'Dea v. BNSF Railway Co., U.S. Supreme Court No. 09-624);
-challenging the refusal by four justices of the Illinois Supreme Court to recuse themselves from an appeal involving a party which contributed substantially to their reelection campaigns and which helps determine the statewide "slating" of judges(Pinnick v. Corboy & Demetrio, PC, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-1129(pre-Caperton)(Response Ordered by Supreme Court) and (Pinnick v. Corboy & Demetrio, PC, U.S. Supreme Court No. 09-168)(post-Caperton);
-representing two minor girls who were sexually abused by the mayor of a city in their suit for damages against the City itself under 42 U.S.C. §1983(Roe v. City of Waterbury, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-1439);
-representing Louisiana homeowners seeking to reinstate a jury's verdict that their insurer acted in bad faith when it delayed and ultimately denied their claims for insurance coverage following the destruction of their homes by Hurricane Katrina(Kodrin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, U.S. Supreme Court No. 09-123);
-challenging the constitutionality of Florida's civil and criminal appellate system which allows its intermediate appellate courts to issue per curiam orders disposing of appeals without written opinions thereby foreclosing appellants from seeking further appellate review from the Florida Supreme Court(Bothe v. Hansen, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-1504);
-challenging the contours of whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(Welch v. Elaine L. Chao, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-836);
-representing peanut farmers in several south and southwestern States in seeking to hold the federal government and its Department of Agriculture to the contract price per pound of peanuts it agreed to when the farmers planted their crops (In re: Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08- 489);
-challenging Hawaii's five-month seasonal ban on thrill craft in navigable waters off Maui's coast as violative of the Supremacy Clause and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1379(a) (UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Smith, U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-1427) (Response Ordered by Supreme Court);
-presenting the question of whether a litigant is denied due process when his appeal is dismissed for the mistakes of federal court personnel(Goldblatt v. Ebert, U.S. Supreme Court No. 07- 1097)(Response Ordered by Supreme Court);
-representing the recognized tribes of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs in the assertion of their inherent tribal right to decide workplace discrimination claims by nonmember employees arising from their consensual employment on tribal lands (Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-357 & Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Ryan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-354);
-representing a Subchapter S corporation which challenged the federal government's regulatory protocol which prevents it from being reimbursed for the state income taxes it paid as the result of performing services for the federal government (Information Systems & Networks Corporation v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court No. 06-234)(Response Ordered by Supreme Court);
--representing the petitioner and authoring the prevailing petition for certiorari in Blaisdell v. City of Rochester, 544 U.S. 957(2005), where the United States Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, VACATED the judgment below and REMANDED the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the doctrine of federal jurisdiction expressed in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413(1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462(1983), was wrongly applied in order to deprive the petitioner of a trial on his civil rights claims in federal court;
-representing the petitioner in Boyd v. Roy Wisdom et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 05-603, where the petitioner was punished with substantial financial sanctions and referred for disciplinary proceedings for bringing a fair housing claim in federal district court. On the strength of the petition for certiorari which challenged the due process deprivations incident to the proceedings, a settlement favorable to the petitioner was reached within a week of the Supreme Court's scheduled vote on the petition. The disciplinary proceedings were dismissed as well on the strength of the petition for certiorari; and
-representing the grandfather and authoring the prevailing Brief in Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649(2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S.1189(2003) which upheld the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute (G.L.c. 119, § 39D). The decision was selected by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as the second most important opinion of 2002. (See Lawyers Weekly, January 6, 2003). Blixt's sense of the evolving nature of the family provided part of the rationale for the High Court's later recognition of same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309(2003).
Highlights of Mr. Derrick's State Court practice include:
-representing the grandfather and authoring the prevailing Brief in Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649(2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189(2003), which established the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute (G.L.c. 119, § 39D). The decision, reported on the Boston Globe's front page of September 10, 2002, was selected by Lawyers Weekly as the second most important opinion of 2002. (See Lawyers Weekly, January 6, 2003). Blixt's sense of the evolving nature of the family provided part of the rationale for the High Court's later recognition of same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
-preparing an interlocutory appeal on behalf of Thomas Junta incident to the "Hockey Dad" criminal prosecution, Commonwealth v. Junta, Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2000-1000, selected by Lawyers Weekly as one of the 30 most memorable cases of the last 30 years. (See Lawyers Weekly, September 16, 2002).
-authoring the prevailing Brief on behalf of the father in Custody of Vaughn, 422 Mass. 590(1996), which established the need for assessing domestic violence by both parents when making child custody determinations.
-authoring the appellant's Brief in Indus Partners, LLC v. Intelligroup, Inc., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 793(2010) which defined for the first time the contours of "broker-dealer" status for purposes of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, G.L.c. 110A, 201 et seq.
-authoring the prevailing Brief in McGovern v. McGovern, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 688(2010), a seminal decision on the reach of the Derelict Fee Statute, G.L.c. 183, § 58.
-authoring Briefs in MacDougall v. Acres, 427 Mass. 363(1998); Hillier v. Hillier, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 486(1996); Delk v. Gonzales, 421 Mass. 525(1995); and Custody of Brandon, 407 Mass. 1(1990), all seminal decisions in the law of inter-jurisdictional child custody disputes.
-authoring the prevailing Brief in Bouchie v. Murray, 376 Mass. 524(1978), establishing the inadmissibility of "totem-pole" hearsay evidence in hospital and medical records.
-authoring the prevailing Brief in Costello v. Pet, Inc.,17 Mass. App. Ct. 382(1984), which reaffirmed the fundamental rules of offer and acceptance in contract law.
-authoring the prevailing Brief in Barry v. Barry, 409 Mass. 727(1991), which established the time limits within which an ex-spouse may seek the modification of an alimony award.
-authoring the prevailing Brief in Boudreau v. Landry, 404 Mass. 528(1989), holding that a minor plaintiff's insanity would toll the running of the statute of limitations for bringing a medical malpractice action.
-authoring Briefs in C.D.L. v. M.M.L., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 146(2008); Sampson v. Sampson, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 366(2004); Boulter-Hedley v. Boulter, 429 Mass. 808(1999); Beaulieu v, Beaulieu, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 850(1999); Smith-Clarke v. Clarke, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 404(1998); Savides v. Savides, 400 Mass. 250(1987); Fugere v. Fugere, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 758(1987); Duro v. Duro, 392 Mass. 574(1984); Belsky v. Belsky, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 852(1980); and the Kennedy trilogy of appeals, all important precedents in family law.
-authoring the appellants' Briefs in Massand v. MMJUA, 420 Mass. 690(1995) and Daniels v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 418 Mass. 380(1994), noteworthy decisions addressing the process due doctors in administrative proceedings.
-authoring Briefs in Danger Records, Inc. v. Berger,444 Mass. 1(2005) and Pirie v. First Congregational Church, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 908 (1997) which establishes the scope of review for single justices when entertaining appeals under G.L.c. 231, § 6G, from orders to pay attorney's fees under G.L.c. 231, § 6F.