 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aldrich v. Commonwealth, SJC-09572,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant's contentions regarding speedy trial violations and an improper denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment were reviewable on direct appeal of his convictions, review on petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3 was not available.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. Attar, No. 04-P-1289,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60B, there was insufficient evidence from a patient to raise legitimate question as to liability by dentist; patient was required to produce expert testimony with his offer of proof as jurors were not competent from their own knowledge to determine the appropriate cement to be used to install a dental bridge.
|
|||||
| Citizens Bank of Mass. v. Business Prods. Online, Docket Number: 03-2816,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted for bank as it alleged prima facie claim for breach of note and guarantees under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 3-308(b), bank did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and corporation and guarantors' defenses of fraudulent inducement and economic duress were unpersuasive.
|
|||||
| Gianopoulos v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Attleboro Div. of the Dist. Court, SJC-09640,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant was unable to show the absence of an adequate alternative remedy from dismissal of his personal injury suit, so relief was unavailable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3. Claimant did not assert that he was unable to adequately obtain review of the dismissal, and, in fact, he had filed a timely notice of appeal from that dismissal.
|
|||||
| Hurton v. Puorro, Docket Number: 01-1617,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County sheriff, Commonwealth, and individual's summary judgment motion was granted as an owner's claims against them were time-barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 3A as they were filed more than three years after they accrued. Further, the owner's claim was derivative of maker's claim, which had been held to be void and unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Klingel v. Reill, SJC-09536,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209D, § 2-205(a)(1), the probate and family court had jurisdiction to enforce a child support order and find a former husband in contempt, even though all parties had lived outside Massachusetts for a period of time, because at the time of the wife's complaint for contempt, she and children resided in Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Merch. Bus. Solutions v. Arst, Docket Number: 06-067,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the net effect of the noncompetition clause would have been that the former employee would have been enjoined from competing with the former employer within the Continental United States and beyond, the former employer's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
|
|||||
| Russ Dev., Inc. v. Cipriano, Docket Number: 2004-00676,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a corporation did not state that it would not obey a notice of deposition or that it would not permit the deposition to be taken, rather, counsel said that the deponent should not be required to appear twice, the attorney's motion to dismiss a legal malpractice action under Mass. R. Civ. P. 37(d) was denied.
|
|||||
| Town of Eastham v. Great Bluewater Dev. Co., Docket Number: BACV2001-00451,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, February 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A town's motion for summary judgment was granted on its claim for injunctive relief against property owners who were conducting illegal commercial operations on their property which was located in a zoning area that prohibited commercial activity, as there was no exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
