absence of clear error in Massachusetts

2019It is a "well-settled proposition that the judge's findings of fact are 'binding in the absence of clear error ... and [we] view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.' " Commonwealth v. Bottari , 395 Mass. 777 , 780, 482 N.E.2d 321 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Correia , 381 Mass. 65 , 76, 407 N.E.2d 1216 (1980).

2019It is a "well-settled proposition that the judge's findings of fact are 'binding in the absence of clear error ... and [we] view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.' " Commonwealth v. Bottari , 395 Mass. 777 , 780, 482 N.E.2d 321 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Correia , 381 Mass. 65 , 76, 407 N.E.2d 1216 (1980).

2019It is a "well-settled proposition that the judge's findings of fact are 'binding in the absence of clear error ... and [we] view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.' " Commonwealth v. Bottari , 395 Mass. 777 , 780, 482 N.E.2d 321 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Correia , 381 Mass. 65 , 76, 407 N.E.2d 1216 (1980).

2019It is a "well-settled proposition that the judge's findings of fact are 'binding in the absence of clear error ... and [we] view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.' " Commonwealth v. Bottari , 395 Mass. 777 , 780, 482 N.E.2d 321 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Correia , 381 Mass. 65 , 76, 407 N.E.2d 1216 (1980).

2015“We cannot properly be asked to revise a judge’s subsidiary findings of fact, where they are warranted by the evidence, or to review the weight (or credibility) of the evidence related to the findings.” Commonwealth v. Moon, 380 Mass. 751, 756 (1980), quoting Commonwealth v. Murphy, 362 Mass. 542, 550 (1972) (Hennessey, J., concurring).

1980We shall accept his findings of fact as binding in the absence of clear error, see Commonwealth v. Moon, 380 Mass. 751, 755-756 (1980), and view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.

2025See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403, 405 (1999) ("motion judge's findings of fact are binding in the absence of clear error").

2016See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403 , 405 (1999) (“motion judge’s findings of fact are binding in the absence of clear error”). 1.

2025"In the absence of clear error, the interpretation an administrative body gives to its own rule[s] is entitled to deference." Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 782 (1980).

2009See, e.g., Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 782 (1980); MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy, 442 Mass. 103, 112 (2004); Fioravanti v. State Racing Commn., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 299, 302 (1978) (all applying the premise that, in the absence of clear error, an agency’s interpretation of its own rules is entitled to deference overcome only by arbitrary or unreasonable application). 2.

2009In reviewing a motion to suppress, the judge’s findings of fact are “binding in the absence of clear error.” Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 420 Mass. 542, 544 (1995).

2009The judge determined that the police had no constitutional basis to search the defendant prior to the defendant’s pushing Officer Henriquez’s hands away, but concluded that the push “provided probable cause to arrest the defendant for the crime of assault and battery.” The judge observed that “ [i]f suspects were legally permitted to resist searches or arrests they believed illegal, chaos and violence would supplant the rule of law.” The judge further observed that, once there is probable cause to arrest, the police “may search a suspect for weapons or for evidence of the crime for which the a

2009See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002); Commonwealth v. Clark, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 39, 43 (2005), and cases cited.

2009However, we “independently review[] the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles to the facts found.” Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002), quoting from Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 593 (2000).

2007See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 444 Mass. 234 , 235 n.2 (2005) (“Although the judge’s findings are ‘binding in the absence of clear error,’ we may reexamine his conclusions of law”).

2007See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 444 Mass. 234 , 235 n.2 (2005) (“Although the judge’s findings are ‘binding in the absence of clear error,’ we may reexamine his conclusions of law”).

2025We draw the undisputed facts from the ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss, supplemented by testimony consistent with those findings. "[W]e defer to the motion judge's finding[s] of fact in the absence of clear error." Commonwealth v. King, 429 Mass. 169, 172 (1999).

2025On review, "we defer to the [motion] judge's finding[s] of fact in the absence of clear error." Commonwealth v. Milo M., 433 Mass. 149, 153 (2001), quoting Commonwealth v. King, 429 Mass. 169, 172 (1999). "[W]e accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error 'but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Hand, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 815 , 820 (2024), quoting Commonwealth v. Fisher, 492 Mass. 823 , 837-838 (2023).

2003See Commonwealth v. Otsuki, 411 Mass. 218, 230 (1991).

1992“We will not disturb these findings of fact in the absence of clear error.” Commonwealth v. Otsuki, 411 Mass. 218, 230 (1991).

2009However, we “independently review[] the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles to the facts found.” Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002), quoting from Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 593 (2000).

2009However, we “independently review[] the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles to the facts found.” Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002), quoting from Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 593 (2000).

2009See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002); Commonwealth v. Clark, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 39, 43 (2005), and cases cited.

2008See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 573 (2002); Commonwealth v. Clark, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 39, 42 (2005), and cases cited.

2009Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 406 Mass. 736, 743 (1990).

1997See Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 406 Mass. 736, 743 (1990); Commonwealth v. Thinh Van Cao, 419 Mass. 383, 384 , cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1146 (1995).

2000If the judge applies that correct test, “we ‘will not disturb [his] findings ... in the absence of clear error.’ ” Commonwealth v. Harwood, 432 Mass. 290, 295 (2000), quoting from Commonwealth v. Waters, 420 Mass. 276, 279 (1995).

2000As we shall describe, the judge applied the correct test and we “will not disturb [his] findings in such a circumstance in the absence of clear error.” Commonwealth v. Waters, 420 Mass. 276, 279 (1995). a.

1992Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 396 Mass. 123, 131 (1985).

1991See Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 396 Mass. 123, 131 (1985), and cases cited.

1985Commonwealth v. Taylor, 374 Mass. 426, 431 (1978).

1980See Commonwealth v. Accaputo, 380 Mass. 435 , 448 n.18 (1980) (findings of fact accepted if there is no clear error); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 377 Mass. 319, 325 (1979) (findings warranted by the evidence will not be disturbed); Commonwealth v. Amazeen, 375 Mass. 73 , 77 n.3 (1978) (findings were warranted by the evidence); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 374 Mass. 426, 431 (1978) (findings accepted in the absence of clear error); Commonwealth v. Burhoe, 3 Mass. App. Ct. *655 590, 591-592 (1975) (findings supported by evidence will be sustained).

1981We shall accept her findings of fact as binding in the absence of clear error, see Commonwealth v. Correia, 381 Mass. 65, 66 (1980); and we owe respect to her conclusions of law, but “we are not bound by them.” Commonwealth v. Cincotta, 379 Mass. 391, 392 (1979).

1980See Commonwealth v. Cincotta, 379 Mass. 391, 392 (1979).

1979Commonwealth v. Moynihan, 376 Mass. 468, 474-475 (1978).

1979See Commonwealth v. Moynihan, 376 Mass. 468, 473 (1978).

2003The judge heard the testimony, and her conclusion that the lieutenant’s statement eliciting the juvenile’s response was the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation is “binding in the absence of clear error.” Commonwealth v. Cao, 419 Mass. 383, 384 , cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1146 (1995), quoting from Commonwealth v. Correia, 381 Mass. 65, 76 (1980).

2001On review of the denial of the motion to suppress, the judge’s “findings are ‘binding in the absence of clear error . . . and [we] view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based on them.’ However, because the issue before us is one of constitutional dimensions, the judge’s findings of fact and rulings of law are open for reexamination by this court.” Commonwealth v. Thinh Van Cao, 419 Mass. 383, 384 , cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1146 (1995) (citations omitted).

1995Commonwealth v. Cast, supra at 897 , citing Commonwealth v. Bottari, 395 Mass. 777, 780 (1985).

1993L. c. 94C, § 32A[c]). 3 The defendants also complained that the official drug analysis certificate carried the stamped signature rather than the handwritten signature of the notary, but the point is foreclosed by Commonwealth v. Johnson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 355 (1992). 4 “The judge’s findings of fact are binding in the absence of clear error, and we view with particular respect the conclusions of law which are based *224 on them.” Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891, 897 (1990).

2014“We accept a judge’s findings of fact, in the absence of clear error, and grant substantial deference to the conclusions of law based thereon.” Commonwealth v. Motta, 424 Mass. 117, 121 (1997), citing Commonwealth v. Bakoian, 412 Mass. 295 , 297- *147 298 (1992).

1997Commonwealth v. Bakoian, 412 Mass. 295, 297-298 (1992).

2025"Our deference to the judge's assessment of the weight and credibility of testimonial evidence includes inferences 'derived reasonably from the testimony.'" Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 487 Mass. 661 , 668 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703, 708 (1998). 3.

2025Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 27 (1997).

2025On review, "we defer to the [motion] judge's finding[s] of fact in the absence of clear error." Commonwealth v. Milo M., 433 Mass. 149, 153 (2001), quoting Commonwealth v. King, 429 Mass. 169, 172 (1999). "[W]e accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error 'but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Hand, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 815 , 820 (2024), quoting Commonwealth v. Fisher, 492 Mass. 823 , 837-838 (2023).

2018See White , 464 Mass. at 414 ; Denardo , 74 Mass. App. Ct. at 363 .

2018See Commonwealth v. McCowen , 458 Mass. 461 , 469 (2010) ("We accept as true the subsidiary findings of fact made by the judge in the absence of clear error and give deference to his credibility findings, because he had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the witnesses as they testified").

2015“We cannot properly be asked to revise a judge’s subsidiary findings of fact, where they are warranted by the evidence, or to review the weight (or credibility) of the evidence related to the findings.” Commonwealth v. Moon, 380 Mass. 751, 756 (1980), quoting Commonwealth v. Murphy, 362 Mass. 542, 550 (1972) (Hennessey, J., concurring).