Court Opinion

ID: 9525633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:45.263734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:50.462038
License: Public Domain

Wilkins, J.
(concurring). The court passes by a non-constitutionally based issue (res judicata or claim preclusion) to hold St. 1992, c. 66, unconstitutional. It is impolitic to decide a constitutional question before disposing of each issue that might make unnecessary a decision and a possible confrontation on a constitutional issue. See Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 393 Mass. 150, 180-181 (1984) (Wilkins J., dissenting).
I join the result reached by the court because the res judi-cata issue was correctly decided below against the defendant and because the statute violates art. 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The earlier judgment in favor of the defendant, quite obviously, did not dispose of the plaintiffs’ current claim which is based on a statutory right that was purportedly created after the entry of the earlier judgment. Claim preclusion thus has no role to play. The Legislature enacted c. 66 with the express intention that it should apply to the facts of this case.