 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abrams v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., Docket Number: 03-0189,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trustee, who was owner of life insurance policy, did not show he terminated policy or that insured was authorized to terminate, so there was no proof of breach of contract when insurer used policy's automatic loan provision to pay premium after insured allegedly requested termination; without proof of breach, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A claim failed.
|
|||||
| Ezenia!, Inc. v. Datacraft Mex., S.A., Docket Number: 03-03390,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer was barred from any remedy under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-714 due to its acceptance of replacement goods from a seller and the buyer's subsequent failure to notify the seller of a breach under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-607(3) within a reasonable time where buyer delayed for three and one-half months in notifying the seller of breach.
|
|||||
| Gould v. Lancaster Tech. Park L.P., Docket Number: 2005-1153,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller's special motion under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 15(c) to dismiss a buyer's breach of contract action was allowed as the seller complied with the parties' agreement. Further, the buyer's action was devoid of any reasonable factual support, devoid of any arguable basis in the law, and was subject to dismissal under the statute of frauds.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Copperbeech P'ship Ltd., Docket Number: 00-1933A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a partnership failed to make payment to a trustee on a specific date, it was in breach of their access agreement; as a result, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6C, the trustee was entitled to a judgment in its favor with interest on the judgment accruing on the date of the breach.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Morasse, SJC-09500,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's request for sentence credit for time defendant spent in house arrest, as neither Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 279, § 33A, nor Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 129B, considered home detention as time spent in confinement for purposes of sentence credit.
|
|||||
| O'Meara v. New Eng. Life Flight, Inc., No. 05-P-210,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a helicopter pilot failed to provide any statute or articulate any special relationship between himself and the hospitals that would create a duty to provide him with mental health care, the trial court correctly dismissed the pilot's complaint.
|
|||||
| Palandjian v. Foster, SJC-09562,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exclusion of expert testimony regarding decedent's increased risk of gastric cancer was upheld as there was no reliable basis for the expert's assertion; while plaintiffs cited a study demonstrating an increased risk where a first degree relative had disease, they produced no data that history among second degree relatives led to an increased risk.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Trudeau & Trudeau Assocs., 05-3815 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A release in a contract was based on consideration and was therefore valid due to the language of the release, the language of the contract that indicated that the release was in exchange for mutual promises, and the provision that considered the contract a sealed instrument under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 9A.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Downey, No. 04-P-1192.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were granted new trials where their effective legal assistance at trial, guaranteed by Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12 and Sixth Amendment, were deprived when counsel, without their clients' consent, wore concealed microphones tied to recording devices during trial, recording privileged communications later broadcast on television.
|
|||||
| Hoar v. Ahern, Docket Number: 02-03804,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's summary judgment motion was allowed on legal malpractice claim based on failure of separation agreement to allow for modification of alimony provision, as divorce court had twice found that separation agreement merged into divorce judgment. Client could bring complaint to modify divorce judgment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 37.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
