 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Comm'r of Corr. v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, SJC-09634,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mass Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 52A did not allow a superior court judge to order a transfer of pretrial detainees from a county jail to a state facility because the legislature did not provide that such transfers were made upon a superior court order, unlike a previous sentence requiring transfers to a county jail to be made upon a superior court order.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Cahoon, Docket Number: 05-520,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use of cell phone left by defendants at the scene of a burglary to develop information that led to defendants' arrests did not constitute improper warrantless search. There was no expectation of privacy in the phone as it was left in a place defendants had no right to be and defendant owner failed to take precautions to safeguard the phone.
|
|||||
| First Taunton Fin. Corp. v. Arlington Land Acquisition-99, LLC, Docket Number: 03-4449 BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were granted summary judgment as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C did not prevent derivative actions by member on behalf of LLC and LLC's operating agreement did not prohibit derivative action. Member's claims were claims to recover money LLC expended and should have been brought derivatively. Member did not comply with Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.1.
|
|||||
| St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Dick Corp., Docket Number: 02-5195,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties' stipulated protective order was approved by the trial court that provided for the treatment of confidential information subject to discovery. Items marked as "confidential" would be retained by counsel and would not be used for any purposes other than as set forth in the stipulation.
|
|||||
| Computer Word Processing Sys. v. Tech. Warranty Solutions, LLC, Docket Number: 05-5378 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Massachusetts Superior Court's Administrative Order 03-1 extended venue availability of the Business Litigation Session in Suffolk County to cases that normally would have venue in Middlesex County, where defendants did not agree to waive venue, the order could not be used to establish venue in Suffolk County.
|
|||||
| Custom Blends, Inc. v. Pearlco of Boston, Inc., Docket Number: 04-00571,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT PLYMOUTH, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Competitor's summary judgment motion was allowed on corporation's misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information claims as the name of the corporation's raspberry concentrate supplier was not a trade secret and the use of the supplier's juice did not make the competitor's salad dressing identical to the corporation's salad dressing.
|
|||||
| Turco v. Robbins, Docket Number: 04-3358,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because neither a union contract nor an employee manual entitled state troopers to have a union representative present at employment reviews, and because the representative was only remotely or indirectly injured, the representative lacked standing to appeal another trooper's grievance under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22C, § 43.
|
|||||
| Wood v. Northside Marina, Docket Number: 01-00476,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Product manufacturer and product seller's summary judgment motions as to those portions of claimants' complaint that asserted a negligent failure to adequately warn in a case where claimants' were injured when their boat exploded; Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C.S. § 4301 et seq., preempted that state common law claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
