Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Schneiderman
The attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York sought documents from Exxon Mobil (Exxon) about Exxon’s “historical knowledge of climate change and its communications with interest groups and shareholders regarding” climate change. Exxon filed a federal suit against the attorneys general alleging that the CID and subpoena were part of a conspiracy “to silence and…
Feeney v. Commonwealth, 366 N.E.2d 1262 (Mass. 1977)
State supreme court confirmed “[t]he authority of the attorney general as chief law officer, to assume primary control over the conduct of litigation which involves the interests of the Commonwealth.” This policy protects the interests of the state as a whole as a unitary client, rather than any one of the many potential agency manifestations…
In the Matter of the Receivership of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., 434 Mass. 51; 746 N.E.2d 513 (Mass. 2001)
A nonprofit consumer group (Health Care for All), was permitted, essentially as an amicus curiae, to participate in an appeal from the receivership proceedings for one of the state’s largest non-profit HMOs. The group argued that the public’s interest was not protected sufficiently by a rehabilitation plan for the HMO which was proposed by the…
Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann- La Roche, Ltd., 762 N.E.2d 303 (Mass. 2002)
“The Attorney General has both a common-law duty and a specific statutory mandate to protect the public interest and enforce public rights.”
Commonwealth v. Powers Fasteners, Crim. No. 07-10802 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Dec. 12, 2007).
A person was killed when a section of ceiling tile fell from a tunnel in Boston’s “Big Dig” road project. A grand jury convened by the Attorney General indicted Powers Fasteners. Shortly thereafter, the state’s Highway Department, which was represented by the Attorney General, sued Powers Fasteners and fifteen other defendants, alleging gross negligence and…
Commonwealth v. Silva, 864 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 2007).
A newspaper sought the names of jurors in a case involving gang violence. The trial court, citing juror safety, impounded the information and the newspaper appealed. The Attorney General entered an appearance on behalf of the trial court. The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that In a case of this nature, the Attorney General is best…
Lifespan Corporation v. New England Medical Center, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 2d 232 (D.R.I. 2010)
In a dispute between a healthcare system (Lifespan) and one of its former hospitals (New England Medical Center–NEMC) over the terms of their separation, NEMC alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. The Massachusetts Attorney General intervened on the NEMC’s side and joined most of the counterclaims against Lifespan. In the…
