 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abraham v. Massad, Docket Number: 2005-00616,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff's suit claiming that he was entitled to percentage of money from the sale of business in which he had invested, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on business dealings that may have been outside the scope of defendant's companies at issue was allowed given the very broad understanding of the doctrine of relevance during discovery.
|
|||||
| Black Rock Capital, LLC v. Gannett, Docket Number: 05-01761,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company's motion to stay arbitration of an attorney's claims for fees pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 2(b), was granted as to all except one of the attorney's claims, as the parties' fee agreement limited the terms of an arbitration clause to the one specific case handled by the attorney.
|
|||||
| Khan v. Saminni, SJC-09644,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother violated a consent decree entered in Trinidad by moving with the child to Massachusetts, the Massachusetts trial court was required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, § 14 to defer to the Trinidad court. Custody laws in Trinidad were reasonably comparable to those in Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Lambert v. Leary, Docket Number: 05-3422,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncle's claims for misrepresentation and fraud were time-barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A as they were filed more than three years from alleged misrepresentation by sister that she would sign a deed to give uncle an ownership interest in a home; that the sister misrepresented that she would sign a deed was not "inherently unknowable."
|
|||||
| Mahoney v. Mahoney, No. 04-P-1545,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The wife did not waive her right to an evidentiary hearing where, if the parties did not enter into a post-divorce agreement, it might be an open question whether the wife was entitled to some form of credit for any substantial improvement made by her to the home; therefore, the judgment of civil contempt against her was vacated.
|
|||||
| Perlman v. Gorovitz & Borten, P.C., Docket Number: MICV-2005-02105-H n11 Formerly Concord District Court Civil Action No. 0247-CV-0318.,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a former partner's entitlement to a referral fee was an interest in the fee, not in the firm, the former law firm's referral fee did not lose its character as "outside" because of its assignment to the former partner. Thus, a 15 percent referral fee was not covered by a later buy out agreement and the former partner was entitled to the fee.
|
|||||
| Salcedo v. O'Connor, Docket Number: 2005-01890,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While plaintiff's motion to strike portions of defendant's answer was not timely under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(f), in that motion was not filed within 20 days after plaintiff received defendant's answer, court chose to give parties opportunity to be heard on matter and ordered them to make arrangements for a hearing on subject of the motion to strike.
|
|||||
| United States Health, Inc. v. Worcester, Lincoln, LLC, Docket Number: 2004-0531A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a tenant's case for damages had not been scheduled for a final pretrial conference and a firm trial date had not been assigned, even assuming that the tenant had not made a decision that it expected to call an expert witness, the tenant had not violated its disclosure obligations under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), 33(a)(3).
|
|||||
| Barry v. Thayer, Docket Number: 03-0307,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for sellers as offer to purchase (OTP) was final and binding agreement as it described property to be purchased, price to be paid, and closing date. OTP indicated that if buyer breached OTP, deposit would become sellers' property. Buyer breached OTP by making it clear that he would not be able to close on agreed closing date.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
