 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Advance Me v. Catfish Grille, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, APPELLATE DIVISION, NORTHERN DISTRICT, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because material questions remained as to whether there was a continuing merchant agreement between an investor and a restaurant and, if so, whether the investor had fully performed under the agreement, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the investor under Mass. R.Civ.P. 56.
|
|||||
| Bonadio v. Iebba, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, APPELLATE DIVISION, NORTHERN DISTRICT, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner did not know a surveyor's actual address until after service was attempted, and because the owner relied solely on an Internet search in directing service under Mass. R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1) at an incorrect address, the trial court erred in denying the surveyor's Mass. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from a void default judgment.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Laguer, SJC-09765,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not denied due process and he was not entitled to new trial based on Commonwealth's failure to provide defense counsel with fingerprint report in defendant's 1984 rape prosecution; counsel knew there was no physical evidence linking defendant to crime, that point was stressed to the jury, and thus, report itself was not exculpatory.
|
|||||
| Fuentes v. Commonwealth, SJC-09573,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3 relief to indictee by single justice was affirmed; trial court's declaration of mistrial in drug prosecution did not bar retrial as mistrial was manifestly necessary where, after being reinstructed and receiving Tuey-Rodriquez charge, jury was still unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the prosecution.
|
|||||
| Kettenbach v. Bd. of Bar Overseers, SJC-09760,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A single justice of the trial court properly dismissed a citizen's action seeking access to records concerning the bar status of a former judge pursuant to the public records law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, § 10, because under the relevant regulations, the public records law applied only to the executive branch of the state government.
|
|||||
| McLaughlin v. Town of Marblehead, No. 06-P-119,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to property owners in their action seeking to register title to land, as a town could not demonstrate that the road was a public way by operation of statute, as the town did not take possession of the road within two years of the road's layout in 1918 as required by 1917 Mass. Acts 344, pt. 2, § 63.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Commonwealth, SJC-09193, SJC-09469,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commonwealth's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion for appointed counsel on an appeal of the denial of a motion for new trial was allowed, because an indigent defendant had no constitutional entitlement to the assistance of appointed counsel in preparing or presenting a postconviction motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
