 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen Homestead Dev., LLC v. Town of Sturbridge Conservation Comm'n, Docket Number: 2005-0265-D,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local by-law was not more stringent than the state environmental protection agency's wetlands regulation; thus, state environmental protection agency had the authority to issue a superseding order negating the town conservation commission's disapproval of the land developer's applications to construct seven residences near a wetlands area.
|
|||||
| Casella v. Groton-Dunstable Reg'l Sch. Dist., Docket Number: MICV2002-03561,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners' challenge to judgment interest award was rejected as "reasonable" interest rate for constitutional purposes represented range of figures. Disparity between rate reached by application of § 37 with built-in recourse to non-fixed market-driven index and that alluded to by owners' expert did not require allowance of owners' motion.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Kendrick, SJC-09514,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether defendant knew beforehand that children would be present at car show, he could not help but become aware of them on his arrival. He failed to remove himself from close proximity to the children. Thus, his probation was properly revoked since he violated "no contact" condition of his probation that he have no contact with children under 16.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Nunez, SJC-09460,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant contended that the use of testimonial hearsay in a probation revocation proceeding was a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him in contravention of the principles announced in Crawford. But, the supreme judicial court concluded that those principles did not apply to probation revocation proceedings.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Wilcox, SJC-09513,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant violated the conditions of his probation by having unsupervised contact with children, his due process rights were not offended by admission of hearsay evidence from a police report. Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12 did not assure defendant an absolute right to confront the witnesses against him in a revocation proceeding.
|
|||||
| Ferris v. Commonwealth, Docket Number: WO CV 2005-2114,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Visitor's action arising from a slip and fall was not time-barred by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 4 because the dismissal of her original action based on a district court's lack of jurisdiction under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 3 was based on a matter of form; the tolling provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 32 applied.
|
|||||
| Kourouvacilis v. Am. Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Emples., No. 04-P-1747,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney forfeited his right to his charging lien under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, § 50 by virtue of being suspended from the practice of law for unethical conduct in a separate suit since that misconduct was related to, and arguably caused harm to, his client's interests in the case in which the lien was sought to have been enforced.
|
|||||
| Southbridge Sch. Comm. v. Southbridge Town Council, Docket Number: 05-00546,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town council's summary judgment motion was granted as to a school committee's declaratory judgment action seeking the return of funds removed from its account by the council, as the council had authority under the town charter, which was consistent with state law pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 43B, § 20, to remove the funds.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
