 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doe v. Banach, Docket Number: 2004-2508-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual abuse case against the diocese, priest, and others, the diocese was entitled to access to plaintiff's mental health records under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(c), as plaintiff placed his mental condition directly in controversy by alleging that his mental health problems were the result of alleged sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Messier, Docket Number: 2004-2512-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual abuse case against the diocese, priest, and others, the diocese was entitled to access to plaintiff's mental health records under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(c), as plaintiff placed his mental condition directly in controversy by alleging that his mental health problems were the result of alleged sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| Doe v. O'Neil, Docket Number: 2004-2513-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Health care providers treatment of claimant was directly related to both claims of the claimant and the defense of those claims; as a result, and pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B, it was more important that the treatment records be disclosed than that the confidential relationship between the claimant and those providers be protected.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop , Docket Number: 2004-2511-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mental health care provider's treatment of claimant was directly related to both claims of claimant and defense of that claim; thus, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20, interests of justice required dictated that the communications involving the treatment be disclosed rather than that the relationship with health care provider be protected.
|
|||||
| G&F Indus. v. Jeffco, Inc., Docket Number: 04-0581,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted paint companies' motion to compel discovery of reports from plant owner's insurer that related to fire prevention activities before a fire at the plant because insurer failed to show it would suffer any specific harm if required to produce reports and good cause was not shown to justify a protective order under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
|
|||||
| Gill v. Blackstone-Millville Reg'l Sch. Bd., Docket Number: 2004-00960,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an informal advisory committee was not elected or appointed by a governmental body and did not expend funds for education, it was not a "governmental body" as defined by Mass. Gen. Law ch. 39, § 23A; consequently, the committee was not subject to the open meeting law, Mass. Gen. Law ch. 39, § 23B.
|
|||||
| Jaroszuk v. City of Worcester, Docket Number: 02-00293,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of police supervisor on claims made against him by a pretrial detainee who suffered injuries in a cell at the hands of an unknown source; supervisor never had any interaction with detainee, facts did not establish § 1983 or Mass. Civil Rights Act claims, and facts did not support IIED claim.
|
|||||
| Metro. Removal Co. v. D.S.I. Removal Specialists, Inc., Docket Number: 2005-1503,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employer was not entitled to preliminary injunction against former employee, who was working for competitor. There was no evidence that former employee misappropriated any of former employer's trade secrets in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, §§ 42, 43. Former employee was never told that information at issue was confidential.
|
|||||
| Mireault v. Northeast Motel Assocs., LP, Docket Number: 04-00730-J,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged proposition was too vague to constitute sexual harassment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(16A) as employee did not know what manager was referring to when after he asked her to have dinner and drinks with him, he stated that they could "see what happen(ed) after that." Sexual advances alone did not establish hostile work environment.
|
|||||
| Reynoso v. Linik, Docket Number: 04-3999,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the second driver because there was no evidence, beyond the motor vehicle accident itself, that the second driver breached her duty to the claimants to drive her vehicle with due care, and the accident, by itself, was not evidence of negligence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
