 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commerce Ins. Co. v. Theodore, No. 05-P-383,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a third person was on the property to repair a condition of the property, a dying tree, and in the course of such repair an injury resulted, such injury was one which arose out of the premises. Since there was a sufficiently close relationship between the injury and the premises, a policy exclusion applied.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Maylott, No. 04-P-1462,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's stiffening of his arm and his refusal to put his hand behind his back, so as to avoid being handcuffed, was exertion of force in attempt to prevent his arrest. As his actions presented substantial risk of injury to officers, evidence supported his conviction for resisting arrest under either prong of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 32B(a).
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Ruidiaz, No. 04-P-1112,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court, under Mass. R. Crim. P. 4(d), permitted an amendment to a count of the indictment allowing the Commonwealth to change the crime from armed assault with intent to rob to armed assault with intent to rob a person over 60 years of age, this was an improper amendment of substance, as it added an element to the charged offense.
|
|||||
| Eckhardt v. Neles Automation, Docket Number: 01-00892-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's wrongful termination claim narrowly withstood summary judgment as employee stated that supervisor asked him to perform dishonest acts to defraud customer and instructed him to test actuators and, if they did not leak, to clean them up to appear as if they were rebuilt so that customer could be charged for rebuilt actuator.
|
|||||
| Gomez v. Paxton Mun. Light Dep't, Docket Number: 02-00623,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A utility department was not immune from liability under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 10(b), (f) for an injury that occurred when a pole snapped because the delay in replacing damaged poles did not involve the requisite type of discretionary planning, and there was no immunity with respect to inspections of city property.
|
|||||
| Virgin Entm't Group, Inc. v. MSKC Newbury, LLC, Docket Number: 05-2045 BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to compel order concerning the issuance of notice of the lease was granted as modified, because the secondary condominium sub-units needed to know that they could be affected by the lease, particularly with regard to common areas in the building.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
