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.
	State Courts - Massachusetts - February 6, 2007
	Culley v. Cato, Opinion No.: 97268, Docket Number: 06-4079, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 6, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Because buyers demonstrated some likelihood of success on the merits of their claims against a seller, a developer, and a builder, the real estate attachments previously granted would stay in place. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Philip Alan, Inc. v. Sarcia, Opinion No.: 97232, Docket Number: 05-00437, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 6, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: A subcontractor was granted summary judgment on a salon operator's piercing the corporate veil claim as its confusing intermingling of business practices with the general contractor was insufficient to suggest a corporate connection between the two entities. Summary judgment was also granted on a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2, claim. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Town of Uxbridge v. Griff, Nos. 06-P-64 & 06-P-340, APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 6, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: A town bylaw did not permit a landowner to use his property for a motorcycle cross-country practice course. The facts, including testimony about noise, dust, complaints, crashes, and injuries, supported the ruling that the use was not permitted in an industrial zone because it was injurious, noxious, or detrimental to the town or its populace. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.