 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chenlen v. Philips Elecs. N. Am., Docket Number: 05-0525,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturers' motion to dismiss was denied as consumer had standing to bring Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9 claim arising out of alleged misrepresentations of life expectancy of manufacturers' light bulbs, as attorney general's regulations identifying unfair and deceptive practices prohibited misrepresentations as to life expectancy of product.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp., SJC-09457,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held corporation could be criminally liable for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24G(b), homicide by motor vehicle, and appeals court erred when it reversed conviction of defendant trucking corporation after a truck driver employed by the corporation struck and killed a police officer while backing up.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Calderon, No. 04-P-1221,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of the doctor's testimony that the victim's normal examination was "consistent with her disclosures" of sexual abuse was harmless error because the testimony of the victim was detailed and compelling, and the jury could not have been "substantially swayed" by the few improvidently spoken words in the otherwise appropriate testimony.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Correia, No. 04-P-1595,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the critical question at defendant's manslaughter trial was the identity of the shooter-defendant or a friend of his who was present at the shooting and was the key witness against him-there was no error in failing to give defendant's requested instruction cautioning jury to study with care the credibility of the key Commonwealth witness.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Wall, Docket Number: 01-10581,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion in limine to admit the grand jury testimony of defendant's mother as substantive evidence at defendant's trial was allowed because defendant actively participated and counseled his mother on how to best avoid having to testify at his trial. Therefore, the application of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in the case was proper.
|
|||||
| Equip. & Sys. for Indus. v. McCloskey Int'l, Inc., Docket Number: 03-1994,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court could not tell which of the requested documents were originally requested and what the objection or response was, a motion to compel under Mass. Super. Ct. R. 30A was denied.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Boston Minuteman Council, Inc., Docket Number: 04-02059,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Council's summary judgment motion was allowed as statute of limitations under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 4C had expired on victim's negligence, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery claims as by time victim was 24 years old, he knew that he had suffered psychological harm and cause of that harm.
|
|||||
| P.V. Constr. v. L. Perrina Constr. Co., Docket Number: 05-1809,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the standards of either Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or the more appropriate and indulgent criteria of Mass. R. Civ. P. 55(c), the individual was entitled to relief as his attorney reacted immediately to the news of the default, presented a substantial defensive position, and inflicted no prejudice upon the opposing party.
|
|||||
| Tom's Gourmet, Inc. v. Northboro Commons, LLC, Docket Number: 2006-03110-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a tenant did not sufficiently show that its business was suffering irreparable injury and that it had a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of lease claim against the landlord, its motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit further alleged lease violations was denied.
|
|||||
| Toto v. Sweeney Construction/Dream Builders & Remodeling, Inc., Docket Number: 05-3579,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner's letter attached to his complaint seeking damages arising from a home renovation project said that he noticed the errors at issue more than four years before he filed suit. Homeowner's tort claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B were thus time barred. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 142A were time barred also.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
