 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Melo, No. 04-P-1606.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to correct the mittimus, as defendant was not entitled to sentence credit for leap year days, as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, § 7, defined a year for sentencing purposes as a calendar year, rather than any set number of days.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Phinney, SJC-09435,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly granted a new trial on a first-degree murder charge, because defendant did not receive effective assistance of council, as defense council's inattention to discovery deprived defendant of two substantial grounds of defense, third-party culprit, and failure of the police to conduct an adequate investigation.
|
|||||
| Guardianship of Zaltman, No. 05-P-1611,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in striking an attorney hired by a ward in an action to discharge a guardianship, as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 201, §§ 13 and 13A, gave the ward the right to discharge the guardianship, and the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the ward was competent to hire her own counsel to pursue the action.
|
|||||
| Passatempo v. McMenimen, Docket Number: 06-0205 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agent's motion to dismiss was denied as, although Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 181 contained statute of repose and was not statute of limitations, it did not protect agent from any damages that occurred from his actions. Further, Massachusetts securities law claims did not fall under § 181, even if it protected anyone other than insurance company.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Commerce Ins. Co., Docket Number: 2004-2394-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where an insurer refused to pay a claim, the insureds' motion for partial summary judgment was denied because the crucial fact of whether one of the insureds caused the fire that destroyed the truck remained in dispute and was essential to the resolution of the case.
|
|||||
| State Bd. of Ret. v. Bulger, SJC-09494,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clerk-magistrate violated laws applicable to his office after convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice; lower court improperly interpreted Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 32, § 15(4) to only apply to crimes involving official duties; consequently, state board of retirement properly held forfeiture of clerk's pension was statutorily required.
|
|||||
| Thibodeau v. Ballardvale Trust Three, LLC, Docket Number: 02-3293,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker's suit to recover for injuries sustained when dock plate retracted while employee was using plate to exit truck was dismissed on summary judgment since testimony of worker's coworker established that it was his carelessness in pulling chain to retract plate without verifying worker's whereabouts, not malfunction of plate, that caused injury.
|
|||||
| Vicor Corp. v. Concurrent Computer Corp., Docket Number: 05-1437A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller was deemed to have accepted buyer's offer and seller's acknowledgement was deemed to have proposed additions to contract where seller's acknowledgement was not acceptance expressly conditioned on buyer's assent to different terms under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-207.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Orman, Docket Number: 03-1581,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 7, 2006, Decided , March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court ruled that for someone without a valid FID card, the minimum sentence that could be imposed for violation of § 10(m) was a sentence of one year to two and one-half years in state prison because a court imposing a state prison term had to impose both a minimum and a maximum term and the minimum term could not be less than one year.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Rollins, No. 04-P-783.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and admitting the results of a breathalyzer test he took, as the initial failure of the equipment to record a proper test result occurred because the operator did not give the machine sufficient time to warm up and a proper result was obtained when the machine was allowed to do so.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
