 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Astra USA, Inc. v. Bildman, Docket Numbers: 98-0580C, 99-1942G,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's claim for equitable forfeiture of CEO's salary and bonuses was denied as CEO's breach of fiduciary duty did not substantially divert time or energy from corporation, cause productivity to wane, or affect normal operations of corporation. CEO met burden of proving fair value of services and that he earned compensation and bonuses.
|
|||||
| Bristol County Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., No. 04-P-1508.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in affirming Contributory Retirement Appeal Board's (CRAB) order that the county board could not recoup the retiree's excess earnings she received from working for the collaborative that later became a state agency; county board's vote pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, § 91(c) to recoup was not reviewable by CRAB.
|
|||||
| Hanna v. Ken's Foods, Inc., Docket Number: 03-3815,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110, § 4 claims against corporation failed as decedent was founder of corporation, held largest share of stock, actively promoted corporation's salad dressings by appearing in radio and print advertisements, and condoned and approved of use of his name on labels and other print advertisements.
|
|||||
| Ingram v. Krock, Docket Number: 04-2468-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion for summary judgment on an intentional interference with contractual relationship claim was denied as a husband had conveyed his interest in a limited partnership and as trustee of a trust to his wife and the husband was a third party.
|
|||||
| Pardo v. General Hosp. Corp., SJC-09433,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an oncologist's discrimination suit against his employing hospital, the trial judge properly denied production of medical peer review documents maintained by the hospital since such documents were insulated from discovery under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, §§ 203-204 and the oncologist failed to prove a lack of good faith by any committee member.
|
|||||
| Petrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, No. 05-P-26,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision by Cohasset zoning board of appeals which approved a lot combination for her neighbors was upheld as it was not barred based on principles of res judicata; in the first case the landowners sought a special permit to alter preexisting, nonconforming uses where as request in second case was appeal from a decision of the building inspector.
|
|||||
| Slayton v. Town of Mashpee, Docket Number: 2003-615,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff fell from chair at Town of Mashpee's facility, Town was entitled to summary judgment. There was no issue of material fact that Town did not act willfully, wantonly, or recklessly under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21, § 17C, as plaintiffs only alleged that Town maintained chairs and that chairs looked fine and showed no signs of defect.
|
|||||
| Galena v. Commerce Ins. Co., Docket Number: 03-0870-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer did not violate Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A and 176D when it declined to pay a chiropractor for care provided to an insured after a certain date; only when coverage under the policy's personal injury protection provisions became questionable did the insurer suspend payments and simultaneously conduct an investigation.
|
|||||
| Rhodes v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Docket Number: 05-1306-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurers were ordered to disclose, inter alia, fact and opinion work product relating to settlement offers created before litigation was threatened or commenced, communications between insurers, and any communication that was copied to insurance agent. Privileged communications shared by counsel with clients jointly defended remained privileged.
|
|||||
| Patriot Plastics, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., Docket Number: 04-2539,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, January 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's motion for summary judgment on an insured's claim for damages arising out of the denial of coverage for the insured's roof damages was denied as both parties were expected to present conflicting expert testimony as to whether the roof's damages were caused by wear and tear, and was therefore excluded under the policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
