 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Matley v. Minkoff, No. 05-P-885,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judge erred in granting a JNOV motion after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the individual and her parents on a failure to obtain informed consent claim where the physician's motion for a directed verdict failed to specify the grounds upon which the JNOV was directed, namely, that the physician had no duty to obtain informed consent.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Thomas, SJC-09210,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first degree murder prosecution, evidence of defendant's controlling nature, his hostile relationship with the victim, and his prior abuse of her, was properly admitted because it was probative to show a pattern of his conduct and to prove he acted intentionally and with criminal responsibility when he killed the victim.
|
|||||
| Ferrari v. Commonwealth, SJC-09360,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's retrial for showing pornography to a minor in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 28, after the jury deadlocked on that charge, would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as victim's descriptions of sex acts depicted in videotapes alone, without admission of the tapes, was sufficient to prove the tapes were "harmful to minors."
|
|||||
| Gentile v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Soc. Servs., Opinion No.: 96942, Docket Number: 05-1916C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for Department of Social Services as finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that step-father physically abused child under 110 Mass. Code Regs. 2.00 was supported by substantial evidence because step-father put hands around child's neck, put thumb against child's windpipe, and moved child from room to room.
|
|||||
| Nunez v. Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc., SJC-09724,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, patron did not have to prove wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct on the part of the restaurant but could prevail on a showing that the restaurant was negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to the underage patron; patron presented evidence restaurant knew the patron's age, as the patron had previously worked there.
|
|||||
| Dupuis-Carter v. City of Worcester, Docket Number: 2003-02418C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was not entitled to summary judgment in a resident's negligence action relating to a slip and fall in a fire station parking lot because case law created a material issue of fact as to the resident's status as a trespasser in the fire station parking lot at the time of the incident.
|
|||||
| Rourke v. Rothman, SJC-09664,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a lot met the grandfather requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 6, including conforming to zoning laws in effect when the lot first became separately owned, it was a buildable lot under Orleans, Mass., zoning bylaw § 164-22A(1). Neighbors were not entitled to summary judgment in their action to prevent construction on the lot.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
