 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Belcher v. Stone, Docket Number: 01-3083A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was no evidence of any threats, intimidation or coercion where an officer shot and killed a decedent during a foot chase, there was no basis for a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11H, 11I. However, there was a basis for claims based on assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 2.
|
|||||
| Chiancola v. Bd. of Appeals, No. 04-P-1610.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was properly denied a variance under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 10 to construct a single-family house where emergency vehicles would not have access; prohibiting construction of single-family lots on homes without frontage was not a regulatory taking and landowner did not show he had been denied all beneficial use of the property.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Ancrum, No. 05-P-153,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred in suppressing evidence obtained when troopers, acting on a radio report of a shooting, stopped defendants' car because troopers relied on detailed description of car along with description of black males with do-rags, and corroborated the broadcast by their observations; thus, they had reasonable suspicion that justified a stop.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Costa, No. 04-P-1331.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting defendant's Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 motion to suppress evidence; police could act on anonymous tip that he had shown a gun he had concealed in his waistband, as anonymous tipster put her anonymity at risk by giving her location near defendant and the fact that number of cell phone she was using could be easily traced.
|
|||||
| McGrath v. McGrath, No. 05-P-512,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Siblings' petition for interlocutory appeal under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 118 was properly denied where they did not demonstrate that motion for reconsideration involved matters that were substantially new where the siblings only filed an appeal from an adverse ruling on a motion to reconsider. Single justice lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal.
|
|||||
| Redlich v. Lanell, Docket Numbers: SUCV2004-01303-C, SUCV2002-03213-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In two declaratory judgment actions wherein an attorney sought to recover a fee pursuant to a modified fee agreement that claimed a contingency fee against a $ 1.454 million dollar settlement, the modified agreement was held unenforceable, as a matter of law, as excessive, though the attorney was permitted to recover upon a quantum meruit theory.
|
|||||
| Sommer v. Maharaj, No. 04-P-591,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in precluding a widow to challenge an order of forfeiture, which allowed a receiver to access and distribute the individual retirement accounts of the widow and her deceased husband to satisfy a judgment against the decedent in a shareholder suit as, though the widow was a non-party, she had standing to challenge the forfeiture.
|
|||||
| TBJ, Inc. v. Puricelli, Docket Number: 2005-1758-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a corporation's appeal for failure to comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17 was proper because notice of the appeal was not given until 24 days after the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision; also, any defect in the posted notice had no impact on the corporation because it presented its position to the ZBA, albeit unsuccessfully.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
