 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Town of Amherst, No. 05-P-1824,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As plaintiffs' land differed from surrounding area, being traversed by waterways that had been designated within flood prone conservancy (FPC) zone for flood control purposes, and underlying zoning districts differed, in revising the FPC district line, town did not commit reverse spot zoning because it did not treat similar properties differently.
|
|||||
| Cellular Express, Inc. v. Smith Bagley, Inc., Opinion No.: 97362, Docket Number: 07-0427 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cellular telephone company's motion to dismiss a breach of contract action was granted, because the Massachusetts long-arm statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a), did not provide personal jurisdiction over the company, as the company did not transact business in Massachusetts, and the alleged breach did not occur in Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Culley v. Cato, Docket Number: 06-4079,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home purchasers' emotional distress claims failed because the allegation that defendants intended for them to purchase a defective home did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct that was beyond all possible bounds of decency, and the purchasers failed to objectively corroborate any emotional distress allegedly suffered.
|
|||||
| Danvers-DCH, Inc. v. Hill, Opinion No.: 97576, Docket Number: 05-2974-BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 5, 2007, Decided , March 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff corporation was not entitled to exercise its option to purchase certain property under an amended lease because when the corporation sought to exercise its option to buy, it was in default under the lease, and defendant landlord's waiver of the default for a lease extension was not a waiver of the default for the option to buy.
|
|||||
| Fontaine v. Commerce Ins. Co., Opinion No.: 97575, Docket Number: 04-2474,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, throughout the pertinent period, an insured's principal place of residence and place for garaging his insured vehicle were not what he represented to the insurer, and the misrepresentation lowered his premium by $ 694, the insurer was entitled to void the insurance policy and deny coverage under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 186.
|
|||||
| Fordham v. Butera, No. 05-P-1779,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Weston, Mass., Zoning By-Law § V.B.5, whether considered a zoning provision, or a general by-law provision, lacked sufficient standards to fairly guide the zoning board of appeal's exercise of authority, it was properly declared invalid.
|
|||||
| N. Shore Plaza II, Inc. v. Northshore Mall Salon, Inc., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, APPELLATE DIVISION, MUNICIPAL COURT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing a shopping center's indemnification action against a salon, because the center was not required by Mass. R.Civ.P. 13(a) to bring a third-party claim against the salon in a subrogation action brought against the center by the salon's insurance company.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
