 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Div. of Med. Assistance, No. 06-P-221,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance properly found an applicant ineligible for MassHealth (Medicaid) benefits under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 118E, § 28; as she failed to prove she had a prior agreement to pay her daughter and son-in-law for their labor in renovating a home she later sold, the money she paid them was deemed part of her estate.
|
|||||
| Bayliss v. Hannan Constr. Corp., Opinion No.: 97255, Docket Number: 04-04636,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prefabricated house seller was entitled to summary judgment on a homeowner's third-party negligence claim; because the contract between the homeowner and seller explicitly stated that the seller was not responsible for the actions of any general contractor, the seller did not owe the injured construction worker a duty of care.
|
|||||
| Bayliss v. Hannan Constr. Corp., Docket Number: 04-04636-J,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's summary judgment motion was granted as owner did not owe duty of reasonable care to construction worker because he did not retain control over home's construction, even though he hired and fired various subcontractors and ordered changes be made to original plans, as he never directed subcontractors as to how to carry out their work.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Gillis, SJC-09794, SJC-09795,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendants who were civilly committed to Bridgewater, Massachusetts, State Hospital had completed their sentences and faced no charges at time State petitioned to commit them to treatment center as sexually dangerous persons (SDPs), they were not "prisoners" and hence were not subject to SDP commitment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, § 12(b).
|
|||||
| Fiske v. Town of N. Attleboro, Opinion No.: 97267, Docket Number: 04-04764,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a damages suit wherein plaintiff sued a town and various employees for instigating criminal proceedings against him, plaintiff's malicious prosecution counts under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 failed since plaintiff was never actually seized since he was never arrested, handcuffed, or placed in custody, at any time.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Braica, No. 06-P-711.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence did not support defendant's conviction for criminal harassment, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 43A(a), because the victim only testified that she was seriously alarmed by his complaints about her to government officials, rather than by nasty remarks he yelled to her, and his complaints to government officials were protected speech.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Town of N. Brookfield, No. 06-P-167,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a town employee was fired after claiming Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32B insurance benefits, while she could sue for a violation of ch. 32B, her firing did not violate ch. 32B, because ch. 32B did not change her at-will status, nor did her firing violate public policy because the cost of insurance could be considered in deciding whether to retain her.
|
|||||
| Salisbury Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeals, SJC-09646,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a nursing home's appeal of Medicaid rates set by Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy was substantive attack on Division's rate-setting regulations themselves, not on how they were applied, the Massachusetts Division of Administrative Law Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the home's appeal under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 118G, § 9.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
