 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cornetta's Case, No. 06-P-9,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment awarding an employee workers' compensation benefits was affirmed since third sentence of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 1(7A) applied only to those emotional or mental disabilities directly triggered by work-related incidents that involved no physical trauma, and case was compensable without reference to third sentence of § 1(7A).
|
|||||
| In re Franchitto, SJC-09670,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to publicly reprimand an attorney instead of suspending him for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 63B and Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) caused by his failure to inform clients of a deficit caused by a lender's failure to provide good funds. The attorney had made a lapse of judgment, and there were mitigating factors.
|
|||||
| In re Seneca One, LLC, Docket Number: 06-02054B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement rights from payee to a factoring company pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231C, § 2, was denied, because the transfer was not in the best interest of payee, as payee did not present a sufficient justification for the transfer of significant benefits in return for a small cash payment.
|
|||||
| Stuart v. Atl. Track & Turnout Co., Opinion No.: 96873, Docket Number: 03-2050,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A supplier of a switch (or track turnout) was entitled to summary judgment in a product liability action by a locomotive brakeman because the brakeman was precluded from presenting expert testimony and the safety features that might be required to be incorporated in the switch design were beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson.
|
|||||
| Zhao v. Am. Med. Response of Mass., Inc., Opinion No.: 97237, Docket Number: CA NO 04-4476,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a passenger's settlement of a personal injury action under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 231B, § 4 was an exceptional case where a question of good faith existed, inquiry into the circumstances of the settlement was warranted; therefore, the passenger's husband was not entitled to summary judgment on the ambulance company's contribution action.
|
|||||
| Baldarelli v. Baldarelli, Opinion No.: 96946, Docket Number: 06-0637-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff shareholder was not entitled to have counterclaims filed by defendants, shareholder and corporation, dismissed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H because counterclaims were not based solely on plaintiff's complaint but also claimed that plaintiff failed to comply with agreement regarding his compensation once he became disabled.
|
|||||
| McSweeney v. Raymond, Opinion No.: 96945, Docket Number: 03-1830,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a court order that allowed for a partial discharge of attachment of real estate did not contain a clear and unequivocal command, and because a plaintiff did not clearly and undoubtedly disobey the order, his payment of a portion of the sale proceeds toward a loan on other property did not constitute contempt under Mass. R.Civ.P. 65.3.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
