 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bejoian v. Barnes, Opinion No.: 97428, Docket Number: 2000-4351,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's jury claim as to Count II (accounting of partnership profits) and Count III (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A) was denied. Plaintiff was entitled to jury trial under Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 15 because case was essentially an action in law sounding in contract and remedy sought by plaintiff was legal in nature.
|
|||||
| Bejoian v. Barnes, Opinion No.: 97428, Docket Number: 2000-4351,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was granted a nominal judgment in a contract action because no written agreement existed between the parties and plaintiff indicated an understanding that if an automobile manufacturer chose not to purchase a website product developed by the parties, his investment in developing the product would be lost.
|
|||||
| Bujold v. EMC Corp., Opinion No.: 97240, Docket Number: 06-2166-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegations employer operated manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile establishment and employee was employed in such an establishment because his job involved product support and he used office machines at work were sufficient to state statutory claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A, arising from violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 48.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Lawrence, No. 05-P-1172,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for indecent assault and battery was supported by evidence defendant touched daughter's vaginal area in manner indecent under circumstances - arrangement of clothing so as to expose, photography, victim's protests, and feeling of shame. Posing charge was adequately shown by victim's verbal description; computer image was not necessary.
|
|||||
| Maitland v. Bd. of Registration in Med., SJC-09613,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Mass. RAP 14(b) did not allow a judge to alter the timeliness requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14(1), and because a physician's reasons for seeking to justify an extension do not fall within the limited circumstances as provided in § 14(1), the physician's motion for leave to file a late complaint was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Ruffino v. Earthwatch Inst., Docket Number: 04-2949,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employer was not entitled to summary judgment on claims of violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B and the Americans with Disabilities Act because a dispute existed as whether any necessary accommodation would have been made had the employee, who was an epileptic, requested such an accommodation.
|
|||||
| S. W. v. D. P., No. 06-P-928,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the father's motion for modification of custody filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209C, § 20, was upheld despite the fact that the father's challenge to the motion had merit, since the family and probate judge did not err in determining that Canada provided a more convenient and appropriate forum to determine the custody issue.
|
|||||
| Shiner-Spagone v. Fabroski, Opinion No.: 98949, Docket Number: 03-00462,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT PLYMOUTH, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B shielded the fence builders from the wrongful death claim because their services required individual expertise necessary to assume protected status, the fence builders made an improvement to real property as defined in § 2B, and the claim was brought more than six years after the fence installation.
|
|||||
| Petricca v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Opinion No.: 97239, Docket Number: 05-00004,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BERKSHIRE, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A client's professional malpractice claim against an accounting firm was time barred under the three-year statute of limitations in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 4 because a decision was rendered in 1995 in connection with a federal lawsuit that a stock redemption recommended by the firm was actually a fraudulent conveyance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
