 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 05-P-1858.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a search warrant identified the place to be searched (defendant's residence) and the items to be seized, but did not identify defendant as a person to be searched, the warrant did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement; therefore, evidence seized from defendant's person was properly suppressed.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Perez, No. 06-P-643,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from him when he showed up at a suspected drug house during the execution of a search warrant directing a search of "any person present;" sufficient evidence of substantial narcotics activity there supported the inclusion of "any person present" language in search warrant.
|
|||||
| I&R Mech., Inc. v. Eastern Contrs., Inc., Opinion No.: 97264, Docket Number: 2004-555F n22 On November 21, 2006, this Court consolidated the current action with D.D.S. Indus., Inc. v. I&R Mech., Inc., Eastern Contractors, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Civil Action No. 04-3658.,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion to enforce a settlement agreement was allowed; because one settlement agreement did not contain a provision allowing the general contractor to deduct outstanding punch list items from the balance owed, the court would not apply the "walk though" and punch list provision found in a second agreement to a subcontractor.
|
|||||
| In re Wainwright, SJC-09744,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As he simultaneously represented, without informed consent, both a debtor and his creditor, an attorney violated former Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, Canon 5, DR 5-105 (A) - (D); former Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(2); and former Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, Canon 7, DR 7-101(A)(1)-(3). He was ordered to be publicly reprimanded.
|
|||||
| Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co. v. EPEC Indep. Power I Co., LLC, Opinion No.: 97269, Docket Number: 05-2710 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Electric company could not recover against a joint venture for alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11 related to a power purchase agreement (PPA) because dispatchability of the joint venture's facility had not affected the terms of the PPA and the joint venture had not improperly modified the terms of or terminated any fuel agreements.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Smallwood Vill. Assocs., Opinion No.: 97278, Docket Number: 99-1116,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the companies failed to move to strike evidence admitted de bene at the close of the offering parties' case, despite offering a timely objection to such evidence, they were precluded from moving to strike the disputed evidence in a post-trial motion.
|
|||||
| Trenz v. Town of Norwell, No. 06-P-254,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing property owners' action alleging that actions by a town and a neighbor in diverting water onto the owners' land constituted a nuisance, because the appellate court could not determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard or whether the trial court disbelieved the evidence.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Williams, No. 05-P-969,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since only ruling on defendant's suppression motion was challenged on new trial motion, he would normally have been considered to have waived Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12 ineffective assistance claim raised only on appeal, but fact that allegedly ineffective counsel conducted trial proceedings meant he should still be able to pursue claim.
|
|||||
| West v. Donvan, Docket Number: 2004-227F,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a realtor's suit against a contractor, alleging the violation of an exclusive listing agreement, an enforceable contract did not exist between the parties because their agreement did not include the material terms of its duration and the realtor's commission, and parol evidence which added new terms could not be used to supply the missing terms.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
