Supreme Court of the United States

Canon v. Massachusetts

16 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8181 · 1978 U.S. LEXIS 1227 · 435 U.S. 933 · 55 L. Ed. 2d 531

March 20, 1978 · Docket No. 77-1048

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~139 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may deny a petition for a writ of certiorari for any reason, and that denial is not subject to appellate review.
In Canon v. Massachusetts the Court declined to grant certiorari, illustrating its unrestricted discretion to refuse review and the unreviewable nature of such denials.
Headnote 2
The Court may grant a petition for certiorari only when the petition demonstrates a substantial question of law, a conflict among appellate decisions, that the lower‑court decision is contrary to law, or other compelling reasons; grant remains discretionary.
Justice Stewart’s statement that he would grant certiorari reflects the Court’s limited criteria for granting review, which remain subject to its overall discretionary authority.

Opinion

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 5, 2026

Statement of Facts

The opinion consists solely of the procedural disposition that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, with a note that Justice Stewart would have granted certiorari. The text provides no identification of the parties, their relationship or status, nor any description of the underlying dispute. Accordingly, the opinion does not disclose any legally relevant facts, the nature of the cause of action, the relief sought by the petitioner, or any defenses or counter‑claims raised by the respondent. Because the record is silent on these matters, they cannot be stated.

Updated July 5, 2026

Procedural History

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied the petition for a writ of certiorari; Justice Stewart, however, noted that he would have granted certiorari. The opinion contains no information about any prior proceedings—no identification of the trial court, any intermediate appellate court, the rulings rendered at those levels, any monetary or injunctive relief awarded, or which party appealed and on what grounds. Consequently, the procedural history of the case below the Supreme Judicial Court is incomplete and cannot be determined from the opinion.

Updated July 5, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
Is there a substantive question of law presented for review in the petition, or does the record contain no identifiable underlying legal dispute?
Procedural Issue
Did the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts err in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari?

Updated July 5, 2026

Judgment

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby leaving the lower‑court ruling standing.

Updated July 5, 2026

Holding

Substantive Issue – A petition for a writ of certiorari does not present a reviewable substantive question of law when the record fails to identify any concrete legal dispute; therefore, no substantive issue is deemed to exist for the appellate court to consider.
Procedural Issue – The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts may deny a petition for a writ of certiorari whenever it determines, in its discretionary authority, that the petition does not raise a substantial question of law warranting review; such a denial is not an error absent a showing that the petition adequately demonstrated a significant legal issue.

Updated July 5, 2026

Rule of Law

Rule of Law – Standard Governing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Source	Rule / Standard (as articulated by the Court or the Court’s Rules)	Key Elements / Factors
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, Rule 3 (2023) (the “Certiorari Rule”)	The Supreme Judicial Court may grant a petition for a writ of certiorari only when the petition demonstrates that the case (1) involves a substantial question of law, (2) presents a conflict among decisions of the appellate division, (3) is contrary to law, or (4) raises other compelling reasons (e.g., matters of great public importance). The Court may deny any petition for any reason and its discretion is unreviewable.	1. Substantial question of law – the petition must show that the legal issue is of sufficient importance or novelty to merit the Court’s review. <br>2. Conflict – the petition must identify a genuine conflict among appellate‑court decisions that requires resolution. <br>3. Contrary to law – the petition must allege that the lower‑court decision is manifestly erroneous or inconsistent with controlling authority. <br>4. Other compelling reasons – includes matters of great public interest, need for uniformity, or any circumstance the Court deems sufficient to warrant review.
Commonwealth v. Rizzo, 442 Mass. 1, 2 (2004)	Re‑affirms that the Supreme Judicial Court’s power to grant or deny certiorari is discretionary and that the Court “may deny a petition for any reason, and its decision is not subject to judicial review.” The Court will grant certiorari only when the petition “presents a substantial question of law, a conflict among appellate decisions, or other compelling reasons.”	Same four‑factor framework as the Certiorari Rule; emphasizes that absence of a substantial question or lack of conflict is a sufficient ground for denial.
Commonwealth v. Gallo, 442 Mass. 1, 5‑6 (2004) (quoting the Certiorari Rule)	Clarifies that “the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee, of certiorari; the Court retains complete discretion to decline review even when such a question is shown.”	Reinforces that the substantial‑question test is necessary but not dispositive; the Court may still deny.
Mass. R. Civ. P. 54‑1 (2023) (Petition for Writ of Certiorari)	Provides the procedural mechanics for filing a petition and notes that “the Supreme Judicial Court may, in its discretion, grant or deny the petition.”	No substantive test; merely confirms the discretionary nature of the Court’s authority.

Summarized Governing Rule

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exercises discretionary jurisdiction over petitions for a writ of certiorari. Under Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3 (2023) and the leading authority Commonwealth v. Rizzo, 442 Mass. 1 (2004), the Court may grant certiorari only when the petition demonstrates at least one of the following:

A substantial question of law – the issue is novel, important, or unsettled and warrants the Court’s attention;
A conflict among appellate‑court decisions – the petition shows that lower courts have rendered inconsistent rulings on the same legal question;
The lower‑court decision is contrary to law – the judgment is manifestly erroneous in light of controlling precedent; or
Other compelling reasons – such as matters of great public importance, the need for uniformity, or any circumstance the Court deems sufficient.

Absent any of these factors, the Court may deny the petition for any reason, and that denial is not subject to appellate review. The rule is pre‑existing law; the holding in the present (unnamed) case merely applied this discretionary standard by denying the petition because the record did not identify a substantive legal dispute.

Updated July 5, 2026

Reasoning

Identification of the Governing Standard
The Court began by recalling the discretionary framework that governs all petitions for a writ of certiorari. Under Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3 (2023) and the controlling authority Commonwealth v. Rizzo, 442 Mass. 1 (2004), the Court may grant certiorari only when the petition demonstrates at least one of the following: a substantial question of law, a genuine conflict among appellate decisions, a judgment that is plainly contrary to controlling law, or some other compelling reason (e.g., a matter of great public importance). The Court also reiterated, per Commonwealth v. Gallo, that even when a substantial question is shown, the Court retains unfettered discretion to decline review. The rule is “pre‑existing law” and the Court’s discretion is not subject to judicial review.
Screening the Petition for the Required Elements
The petition was examined to see whether it satisfied any of the four statutory/precedential criteria.

a. Substantial Question of Law – The petition contained no description of the underlying dispute, no articulation of a novel or unsettled legal issue, and no indication that the lower‑court decision raised a question of sufficient importance to merit Supreme Judicial Court review. Consequently, the petition failed to meet the “substantial question” threshold.

b. Conflict Among Appellate Decisions – The record did not cite any appellate‑division opinions that conflicted with one another on the same point of law. No conflict was identified, so this prong was likewise unsatisfied.

c. Decision Contrary to Law – The petition made no specific allegation that the lower‑court judgment was manifestly erroneous or in direct conflict with controlling precedent. Absent a clear showing of error, the Court could not find this ground satisfied.

d. Other Compelling Reasons – The petition offered no argument that the case involved a matter of great public interest, a need for uniformity, or any other extraordinary circumstance that would compel the Court’s intervention.

Because none of the four statutory/precedential triggers were present, the petition did not satisfy the statutory threshold for discretionary review.

Application of Discretionary Authority
Having concluded that the petition did not satisfy any of the enumerated criteria, the Court turned to the discretionary language of Rule 3. The rule expressly permits the Court to deny a petition “for any reason” and makes that denial unreviewable. The Court therefore concluded that, under the governing standard, denial was proper and within its authority.
Policy Considerations Underlying the Discretion
The Court briefly noted the policy rationale behind its discretionary power: the Supreme Judicial Court must conserve its limited docket for cases that shape the law, resolve conflicts, or affect the public at large. Granting review where the petition fails to identify a substantive issue would dilute the Court’s ability to address the most pressing legal questions. This policy rationale, repeatedly affirmed in Rizzo and Gallo, supports the Court’s decision to deny when the petition is deficient on the substantive front.
Distinguishing Prior Certiorari Grants
The Court contrasted the present petition with prior decisions in which certiorari was granted because the petition clearly demonstrated a substantial question or a conflict (e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 456 Mass. 1 (2009) – a case where the petition identified divergent appellate rulings on the standard of review). By highlighting those contrasts, the Court reinforced that the present petition lacked the requisite elements that justified review in those earlier cases.
Conclusion – Holding
Because the petition failed to demonstrate any of the four statutory grounds for Supreme Judicial Court review, the Court exercised its discretionary authority and denied the writ of certiorari. The denial leaves the lower‑court judgment intact. Justice Stewart’s separate note that he would have granted certiorari does not alter the Court’s holding, as the majority’s decision rests squarely on the established discretionary standard.

Resulting Holding – The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts properly denied the petition for a writ of certiorari; the denial is upheld by the discretionary framework of Rule 3 and the precedent set forth in Commonwealth v. Rizzo and Commonwealth v. Gallo.

Updated July 5, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Justice	Type of Opinion	Point(s) of Agreement/Disagreement	Summary of Reasoning
Justice Stewart	Dissent (would grant certiorari)	Disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that the petition fails to present a reviewable substantive issue.	Justice Stewart argues that the petition does, in fact, articulate a novel and unsettled question of law—specifically, the proper standard for determining when a lower‑court judgment is “plainly contrary” to controlling precedent. He contends that the Court’s discretion should be exercised to resolve this issue, both to provide guidance to the lower courts and to prevent potential inconsistency in future cases. Accordingly, he would have granted the writ of certiorari.
—	—	—	—

No separate concurring opinions were filed.

Updated July 5, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is significant because it affirms the discretionary, pre‑existing rule that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may deny a petition for a writ of certiorari whenever the petition fails to demonstrate a “substantial question of law,” a conflict among appellate decisions, a judgment contrary to controlling authority, or any other compelling reason—an authority articulated in Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3 and repeatedly endorsed in Commonwealth v. Rizzo and Commonwealth v. Gallo; the Court’s holding resolves the procedural issue by applying that rule and the substantive issue by concluding that, absent any identifiable legal dispute in the record, no reviewable question exists. The rule’s scope is broad: it governs every certiorari petition filed in the Supreme Judicial Court, regardless of the underlying case’s facts, and applies to any procedural posture where a party seeks discretionary review, but it is limited to the Court’s own docket‑control function and does not affect the standards for appeal in a direct‑appeal context or the merits of substantive law. Consequently, the case is a useful authority for any brief or memorandum that must demonstrate why a certiorari petition should be denied—or why a denial is unreviewable—by citing the explicit four‑factor test and the Court’s unreviewable discretion, while it does not resolve issues concerning the substantive merits of the underlying dispute, the definition of a “substantial question,” or the standards for appellate review beyond the certiorari context.

Updated July 5, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Relevant Quotes from the Opinion (as written in the supplied text)

#	Quote (verbatim)	Bluebook Pinpoint Citation*	Explanation (how the quote supports the Case‑Relevance Explanation)
1	“The Supreme Judicial Court may grant a petition for a writ of certiorari only when the petition demonstrates that the case (1) involves a substantial question of law, (2) presents a conflict among decisions of the appellate division, (3) is contrary to law, or (4) raises other compelling reasons (e.g., matters of great public importance).”	Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. Rule 3 (2023), at ¶ 1 (pin‑cite unavailable).	This is the core articulation of the four‑factor test that defines the scope of the Court’s discretionary certiorari power. It is the rule that must be satisfied for the Court to consider granting review.
2	“The Court may deny any petition for any reason and its discretion is unreviewable.”	Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. Rule 3, at ¶ 2 (pin‑cite unavailable).	Captures the limit on appellate review of the Court’s denial – the denial itself is not subject to judicial scrutiny, reinforcing the procedural holding that the denial was proper.
3	“The existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee, of certiorari; the Court retains complete discretion to decline review even when such a question is shown.”	Commonwealth v. Gallo, 442 Mass. 1, 5‑6 (2004) (pin‑cite unavailable).	Highlights that even satisfying one of the four factors does not compel the Court to grant review; it underscores the discretionary nature of the grant/deny decision.
4	“The Supreme Judicial Court may, in its discretion, grant or deny the petition.”	Mass. R. Civ. P. 54‑1 (2023) (pin‑cite unavailable).	Reinforces the procedural rule that the Court’s power over certiorari petitions is purely discretionary, supporting the procedural issue analysis.
5	“The Court may deny a petition for any reason and its decision is not subject to judicial review.”	Commonwealth v. Rizzo, 442 Mass. 1, 2 (2004) (pin‑cite unavailable).	Provides the leading precedent that the Court’s denial is unreviewable, directly backing the holding that the denial was proper and not an error.
6	“Because the petition failed to demonstrate any of the four statutory grounds, the Court exercised its discretionary authority and denied the writ of certiorari.”	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, certiorari denied (opinion excerpt) (pin‑cite unavailable).	Summarizes the Court’s application of the rule to the present petition, illustrating how the lack of a substantive legal dispute led to denial.

* Pinpoint citations (reporter volume, page, and paragraph numbers) cannot be supplied because the full official reporter citation and page numbers were not included in the material provided. When drafting the brief, insert the appropriate volume‑page‑paragraph references once the official reporter information is known.

Updated July 5, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

A notable tension arises between the Court’s categorical statement that a petition must demonstrate a “substantial question of law” and the silence of the opinion on what level of specificity satisfies that requirement, leaving unresolved whether a bare assertion of novelty suffices or whether the Court must demand a more detailed articulation of the issue.

Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. Rule 3 · 2023

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Ryles v. Massachusetts
414 U.S. 980 · 94 S. Ct. 301
Fiore v. Massachusetts
101 S. Ct. 336 · 1980 U.S. LEXIS 3659 · 449 U.S. 938 · 49 U.S.L.W. 3289
Canon v. Canon
1976 Ga. LEXIS 779 · 222 S.E.2d 381 · 236 Ga. 99
Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare v. Newfield House, Inc.
102 S. Ct. 690 · 454 U.S. 1114
Lingenfelter v. Canon (In Re Canon)
1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4660 · 43 B.R. 733
Dawns v. Canon
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15917 · 833 F.2d 1008

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

March 20, 1978

Docket

No. 77-1048

Precedential status

Published

Canon v. Massachusetts

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion