R

L

Attorney Rosseel argued that Mr. Murphy's union had breached its duty of fair representation by missing the deadline to demand arbitration on Mr. Murphy's termination grievance.
Although the law affords unions very broad discretion to decide how to process employee grievances, and although the union had only missed the deadline by less than a week, Attorney Rosseel persuaded the court that the union's late demand for arbitration violated the law.
The Appeals Court upheld a "make whole" award requiring the union to pay Mr. Murphy for his loss of compensation from the time he was terminated until he was reinstated.

Attorney Rosseel argued that the trial judge had prejudiced Mr. Wolfe by instructing the jury about the absence of breathalyzer evidence.
Although this breathalyzer instruction had been in common use for over fifteen years, Attorney Rosseel's argument won the day.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Mr. Wolfe was entitled to a new trial, and that the breathalyzer instruction could no longer be given if the defendant objected.
After the prosecution waited more than a year without re-trying Mr. Wolfe, Attorney Rosseel got the case dismissed, and got Mr. Wolfe a full refund of all court costs and fees.

Attorney Rosseel argued that Ms. Delima had been convicted of a crime base on protected speech that she had published on YouTube.
Attorney Rosseel advanced arguments under both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed Ms. DeLima's conviction, and ruled that the speech she had published on YouTube was immune from punishment under the Massachusetts harassment statutes.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court also ordered that a judgment of acquittal be entered in Ms. DeLima's favor.

Attorney Rosseel argued that a trial judge incorrectly ruled that Ms. Piwowarczyk had to continue paying for her ex-husband's insurance indefinitely.
The separation agreement only entitled the ex-husband to insurance so long as he remained eligible under Ms. Piwowarczyk's insurance plan. Ms. Piwowarczyk had moved to another state to be closer to her sons, so the ex-husband was no longer eligible.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed that judgment against Ms. Piwowarczyk, and ruled that the trial judge's decision to require Ms. Piwowarczyk to continue paying for the ex-husband's insurance was wrong.

Attorney Rosseel argued that a trial judge incorrectly threw out Ms. Holland's malpractice case against an attorney who had allowed the statute of limitations to expire on a personal injury case that Ms. Holland had hired the attorney to pursue.
Without the proceeds from the personal injury case, Ms. Holland went bankrupt. One reason the trial judge gave for throwing out the malpractice case was that Ms. Holland had not thought to list the personal injury case as an asset in Ms. Holland's bankruptcy filing.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the judgment against Ms. Holland, and ruled that Ms. Holland was entitled to a jury trial where she could prove that any failure to disclose the personal injury case during the bankruptcy was an innocent mistake.

Attorney Rosseel argued that JB Mortgage Co could not enforce a twenty-five year old agreement to pay $400,000 against Mr. Ring because the statute of limitations on the agreement had expired.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, and ruled that the default triggering the right to sue under the agreement had occurred more than twenty years before JB Mortgage Co had filed suit.