 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boylan v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., Docket Number: 02-2296 BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When interested corporate directors breached fiduciary duty by not telling a board they did not give a shareholder required notice of a proposed transaction, which the board subsequently ratified, it could not be found, as a matter of law, in a shareholder derivative suit, that disinterested directors acted in good faith or did a thorough analysis.
|
|||||
| Chapman v. Katz, SJC-09786,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the ATM kiosk the sublessee sought to erect on the property was a structure, for which consent from the owners was necessary, the owners unreasonably withheld consent in contravention of the lease terms; the owners could not object based on, inter alia, insurance concerns, renovations to existing structure, or parking lot configuration.
|
|||||
| City of Boston v. Roxbury Action Program, Inc., No. 05-P-1268.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where city sought to enforce a covenant in a recorded document in which property owner promised to convey property to the city by July 31, 1974, the land court did not err in dismissing the complaint against property owner and others because the city failed to bring its claims within the statute of limitations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Rodgers, SJC-09741,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although supreme judicial court found no error in denial of motion to dismiss for failure to grant speedy trial under Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b), it did find trial court erred in, inter alia, excluding time that resulted from continuances agreed to by counsel while defendant's pro se motion for new counsel based on breakdown in communication was pending.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Anderson, SJC-09474,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements to police made after defendant initiated conversation, and was informed of Miranda rights and fact assigned counsel asked he not be questioned without counsel were admissible. Testimony about defendant's knife skills were relevant to prove he possessed means and ability to commit crime, thus making it relevant to whether he was killer.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Klement, Opinion No.: 97748, Docket Numbers: 06-986, 06-987, 06-988,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, March 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to suppress drugs and other evidence was allowed, because the stop of defendants' vehicle, although made by conscientious police officers with the best of intentions, was based on a hunch, and thus, the police lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the stop.
|
|||||
| Labbe v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Opinion No.: 97750, Docket Number: 06-00185,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BRISTOL, March 19, 2007, Decided , March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was clear that there was nothing in the sought after document, which the store sought to make subject to a confidentiality agreement, that approached proprietary or confidential material that deserved protection under Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c), as the document was nothing more than a conventional safety advisory, the request was denied.
|
|||||
| Susnock v. Golledge, Docket Number: 06-1322,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court was not convinced that an abutter was merely presenting a matter of public concern, which was not enough in and of itself to establish standing under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14, the court was concerned about whether the abutter's particular proximity to an oil company created some kind of abutter standing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
