 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Andrew Robinson Int'l, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 08-1255,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court would not construe a final judgment in a declaratory action that did not raise coercive claims as barring a subsequent damages action asserting damages claims that arose out of the same transaction. Thus, dismissal, on res judicata grounds, of the corporations' claim for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11 was reversed.
|
|||||
| Giragosian v. Ryan, No. 08-1067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Gun shop owner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action alleging violations of U.S. Const. amend. IV and XIV rights due to revocation of his licenses to carry and sell firearms under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 122 and 131(f) was dismissed as a state court in a parallel action had already refused to reinstate the licenses; the federal claim was res judicata.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boyd, No. 08-1114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Fourth Amendment, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence as internal security officer for delivery company was private party and not agent or instrument of government and he independently decided to open defendant's package since it was heavily taped and addressed to a hotel and not a business or residence.
|
|||||
| Velazquez Linares v. United States, No. 08-1548,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a post office patron's FTCA action was dismissed for failing to furnish an electronic copy of her complaint pursuant to the district court's standing order, the dismissal was an abuse of discretion because, inter alia, the patron was not afforded notice and a brief opportunity to cure and defendants did not make any showing of prejudice.
|
|||||
| Fraticelli-Torres v. Hosp. Hermanos, No. 07-2397,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife's EMTALA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395dd, claim was properly dismissed because the initial decision not to order thrombolysis for her husband in the emergency room triggered only EMTALA's stabilization criteria under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1395dd(e)(3)(A), and there was no issue of genuine fact concerning defendants' pre-transfer stabilization of her husband.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. West Lake Acad., Nos. 07-2190, 07-2204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In student's abuse action, judgment for insurer was proper because jury was correctly instructed that the insurer was not required to present evidence of a written settlement offer to comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3(9)(f). There was no liability on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A failure-to-settle claim without a violation of ch. 176D, § 3(9)(f).
|
|||||
| Island View Residential Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., No. 08-1287,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly sustained a contractual bar defense, namely, an explicit requirement in the insurance contract that suit be brought within two years of the benefits denial, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176A, § 8(c) permitted such a provision. Although federal law governed ERISA claims, there was no good cause not to recognize such a provision.
|
|||||
| R.I. Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 07-2673,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Secretary's interpretation of 42 C.F.R. § 412.105(f)(1) was not arbitrary or capricious where it was consistent with the purpose of § 412.105(f)(1), which was to exclude residents from a hospital's full-time equivalent resident count who did not contribute to added costs, which the indirect medical education adjustment was intended to reimburse.
|
|||||
| IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte, No. 07-1945,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prohibition of the use of physician prescription histories for pharmaceutical marketing purposes under RSA 318:47-f was not unconstitutional, since the statute regulated conduct rather than speech and could be narrowly construed to limit its effects to its intended purpose of curbing healthcare costs and to regulate only in-state activity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
