 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Botany Bay Constr. Co. v. B&B Constr., Docket Number: 2005-00666-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the president of a corporation was properly served, chose not to engage an attorney, respond or otherwise resolve the dispute, and there was no evidence that he was led to believe that he did not have to file an answer, there was an absence of any good reason for the default. Thus, the default could not be described as "excusable."
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Bonds, SJC-09507,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's rape trial, the trial court properly allowed the victim's mother to testify that the victim was overly trusting as a result of a brain disorder, as that testimony was not impermissible character evidence, but instead described a specific manifestation of the victim's mental disorder.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Gallant, No. 03-P-255,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the victim's testimony that defendant had "tried to take" her, viewed in context, was merely a summary description of the specific amount, type, and degree of force she believed defendant was exerting upon her when he grabbed her, it was admissible.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Matchett, Docket Number: 03-340,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss probation surrender action was denied because by entering his guilty plea, defendant waived the claim of double jeopardy concerning duplication of two indictments for which defendant pled guilty.
|
|||||
| DiPlacido v. Hayes Dev. Corp., Docket Number: 02-4684,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although construction company violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A as to homeowners' residence, the violation was not intentional or wilful so as to require double or treble damages; company's acts and omissions, through its workers and subcontractors, was more incompetence than deliberate deception, and company attempted to respond to complaints.
|
|||||
| Jack-O-Lantern Spectacular, Inc. v. Usovicz, Docket Number: 02-0195A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was entered for a City as a corporation's breach of contract claim failed as the corporation did not have a written contract signed by the mayor, the corporation's show generated revenue over $ 59,000 and the expected revenue was over $ 100,000, and the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 43, § 29 requirements were not met.
|
|||||
| Killion v. Harbor, Docket Number: 2004-1511-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marina was entitled to summary judgment in a breach of contract action involving the lease of a boat slip. The boat owner bringing the action had failed to comply with his own contractual obligations in that he failed to tender a 50 % payment of the annual lease cost for 2004 by the contract deadline of December 31, 2003.
|
|||||
| Martinonis v. Utica Nat'l Ins. Group, No. 05-P-53,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a finder of fact could have conclude under the relevant legal standards that the insurance broker was negligent and that such negligence caused the insureds to have an insufficient limit of liability for the property damage done to their home by the fire, summary judgment was not appropriate.
|
|||||
| Martus v. Mass. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Docket Number: 05-0898-H,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DSS decision to remove foster children from parent's home was based on substantial evidence due to unsanitary conditions and severe discipline, but decision to close foster home, rather than limit parent to one child, was questionable where DSS ignored evidence that showed parent had been capable mother and was overwhelmed by an added third child.
|
|||||
| McLaughlin v. CGU Ins. Co., SJC-09528,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer argued it was not obliged to indemnify its insured for damages he caused plaintiff because it had cancelled policy. Granting summary judgment to plaintiff was error as insurer's business records created fact issue as to whether it timely sent notice of cancellation to Registrar of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113A.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
