 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cogliano v. Dixon, Docket Number: 01-03672,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim that attorney committed malpractice in drafting deed was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel as land court had decided that son was not entitled to reformation of deed based on findings that neither son nor father provided attorney with copy of trust document or informed attorney of existence of trust, which held title to land.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Durham, SJC-09576,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order requiring defendant to turn over statements of intended witnesses for the Commonwealth that he intended to use at trial was authorized by former Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a); Rule 14(a)(2) did not limit disclosure to only those witnesses that a defendant intended to call to trial in his case-in-chief.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. McKinnon, SJC-09603,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of assault and battery with a deadly weapon was affirmed because the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the castle law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 8A, as the castle law applied only to incidents which occurred inside a residence, which did not include an outdoor patio and stairs where the fight occurred.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Harbor Schs., Inc., SJC-09566,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As limitations period on plaintiff's negligent breach of fiduciary duty claim began running when she first became aware of facts giving rise to her injury by defendant, not when she first understood the causal connection between her injuries and a legally cognizable claim against him, that claim was time-barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.
|
|||||
| Malo v. Town of Holden Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Docket Number: 04-1587-D,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a zoning board's decision to grant a variance was based on changes in the zoning classification, the lots conformed with an already preexisting use as to single-family residences, and the board determined that granting the variance had no adverse impact on the public, all conditions within Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 10 were met.
|
|||||
| Roderick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Docket Number: BACV2004-00403,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to property owners on a neighbor's appeal of a zoning board's grant of a variance to the property owners to build a single family home, as the neighbor was not an abutting owner and failed to produce specific facts to support a claim of property value diminution as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17.
|
|||||
| Town of Wellesley v. Javamine, Inc., Docket Number: 06-394-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town's application for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit a take-out donut shop from opening without a common victualler license under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 2 was denied as the town could not show a likelihood of success on the merits because a common victualler was a purveyor of food for consumption on the premises.
|
|||||
| Warrington v. Town of Rutland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Docket Number: 05-0078C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' summary judgment motion was denied as they waived their claim that board of zoning appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue cease and desist order upon petition of abutter because owners failed to allege that abutter was not person aggrieved before they filed their appeal of board's decision under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
