 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DeRoche v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination, Docket Numbers: 03-4218, 034288,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court determined for what services by his attorney a litigant was entitled to an award by concluding what constituted issues on which the litigant prevailed. The court then deducted fees that were not rendered in the consolidated action but in a third and separate action, and fees that were for services that were unnecessary or redundant.
|
|||||
| Bookstein v. Kohn, Opinion No.: 97057, Docket Number: 05-02800,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the condominium buyers alleged evidence upon which a jury could find intentional misrepresentation, but there were integration and exculpatory clauses which barred a claim of negligent misrepresentation, summary judgment was granted as to the negligent misrepresentation count only. It was denied as to the intentional misrepresentation count.
|
|||||
| Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., Opinion No.: 97139, Docket Number: 04-1893-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the company officer's partial summary judgment motion and granted the insurance company's partial summary judgment motion upon finding relevant insurance policy did not cover defense costs company officer incurred after his judgment of conviction was entered, as language of the policy did not extend coverage beyond that time.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Forsythe, Opinion No.: 97649, Docket Number: 06-201,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied, as an officer had probable cause to search a minivan. A cab driver's statement to the effect that he had arranged to make a purchase from a passenger, together with the officer's observations of the minivan and another vehicle, was enough to indicate a likelihood that drugs would be found.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., SJC-09730,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting defendant juvenile's motion to suppress a firearm seized from him was vacated because the motion judge omitted the mention of related testimony by detectives in some of the findings of fact so as to appear incomplete; gaps in facts were material as to issues concerning, inter alia, a reasonable suspicion that defendant had a weapon.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Miller, SJC-09788,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, family court had personal jurisdiction over husband, Arizona resident, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(g) as the disjunctive "or" in statute allowed personal jurisdiction where one committed any act (in this case, marital conversations) giving rise to the stated claim for divorce (irretrievable breakdown) in Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Safstrom v. Brigham-Gill Motor Cars, Inc., Docket Number: 2005-01316,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's summary judgment motion was allowed as Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim failed as employee did not show that reason for termination was pretext for age animus as general sales manager did not harbor discriminatory intent in stating that he hoped he did not have to work at employee's age as he probably would not have to do so.
|
|||||
| Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Hous. Appeals Comm., Docket Number: 05-3733L,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A town, a zoning board of appeal, and a municipal electric department failed to meet their burden of proving, 760 Mass. Code Regs. 31.06(3), that the inherent danger of the department's substation bordering the property at issue outweighed the regional need for affordable housing as children already lived in the vicinity of the substation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
