 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bennett v. New Eng. Mobile X-Ray, Inc., Docket Number: 05-2526,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H, the anti-SLAPP statute, failed because defendants could not establish as a threshold matter that a former employee's defamation and IIED action against defendants was based solely on their activities in bringing a failed criminal complaint against the employee.
|
|||||
| Medical Prof'l Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Steinberg, Docket Number: 03-5746-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's summary judgment motion was allowed because insured's claims made policy had expired and insured did not purchase new policy by time insurer was notified of patients' claim against insured. Attorney hired by insurer to represent insured in another suit did not have actual or apparent authority to accept notice of new claims for insurer.
|
|||||
| Adoption of Leland, No. 05-P-898,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was vacated as findings did not support history of abuse or neglect or likelihood of it in future; as there was no evidence father had history of drug-related charges, there was no basis for requiring him to undergo drug screening and failure to visit child was due, in part, to fact he had not been adjudicated father.
|
|||||
| Bina v. Ristorante Toscano, Inc., Docket Number: 69-596-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyers' motion for preliminary injunction regarding attempt to buy restaurant business from sellers was denied; buyers did not have a likelihood of succeeding on their specific performance claim, their showing of irreparable harm did not outweigh weakness of showing on likelihood of success, and balance of equities did not weigh in their favor.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Tirado, No. 04-P-894,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In second degree murder case, evidence did not support a reasonable doubt with respect to either of the first two prerequisites of self-defense - reasonable fear on the part of defendant and no practical opportunity to avoid the encounter (in fact he sought out confrontation.) Thus, trial court's refusal to instruct jury on self-defense was proper.
|
|||||
| Howard v. Daniels, Docket Number: 02-635,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's appeal of special permit was dismissed as owner relied on erroneous notation made by board member indicating that decision was filed on April 3rd and filed his appeal on 21st day; town clerk certified that she had no notice of any appeal being filed within 20-day appeal period of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17. Appeal was untimely.
|
|||||
| Peters v. EquiServe, Inc., Docket Number: 05-1052,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employees' wiretap claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 failed as employees knew that telephone call was being recorded, telephone equipment exception applied as employer's purposes for recording the calls were legitimate, and employee who accessed recording was not acting within scope of employment.
|
|||||
| Rempelakis v. Russell, No. 04-P-1489,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In will contest, there was no evidence that executor exerted undue influence on decedent. There was evidence to support trial court's finding that decedent's relationship with executor, his wife, and their children was such that testamentary disposition was natural one, particularly given decedent's recent estrangement from contestant of the will.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
