 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Badlands Trust Co., LLC v. Putnam Cal. Inv. Grade Mun. Trust, Docket Number: 07-1230 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff trustee was not entitled to a TRO to prevent a business trust from proceeding with a plan of dissolution made in response to a tender offer because plaintiff's beneficiary would not suffer irreparable harm as its economic loss from the reduction of shares to the net asset value was minimal and money damages were an adequate remedy.
|
|||||
| Bergeron v. Ridgewood Elec. Power Trust V, Opinion No.: 97609, Docket Number: 07-1205 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion for a preliminary injunction was denied because plaintiff failed to show: (a) that the entities for which he spoke derivatively would suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief sought was not granted; or (b) that their harm, without the injunction, outweighed any harm to defendants and from defendants being enjoined.
|
|||||
| Siewers v. LaValley, Opinion No.: 97741, Docket Number: 02-01234,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BRISTOL, March 26, 2007, Decided , March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an injured person's claim for statutory interest was within the coverage of policy, there was no reason for the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund's exposure to be any less than what the insurer's would have been, the injured person was entitled to prejudgment interest under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6B.
|
|||||
| Castillo v. Pascual, Docket Number: ESCV-2004-1628,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, March 27, 2007, Decided, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer's motion for partial summary judgment was denied as buyer was not judicially estopped to argue that an option clause was unenforceable since buyer's position was not entirely inconsistent with previous positions, and buyer was not intentionally engaging in an attempted manipulation of the judicial process.
|
|||||
| Curtis v. Comm'r of the Div. of Unemployment Assistance, Nos. 06-P-144, 06-P-242, & 06-P-354,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First employee, who had received a voluntary separation package (VSP), was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151A, § 25(e)(1) because the main motivation in accepting the VSP was not the fear of losing her job but fear that she would have more responsibilities if other managers accepted the offer.
|
|||||
| Diebold Election Sys. v. Galvin, Opinion No.: 97658, Docket Number: 07-1129 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion for preliminary injunction was denied because it did not show likelihood of success on merits, irreparable harm or that public interest would be served, rather than harmed, by granting relief. Corporation had no evidence of illegal or arbitrary action by state secretary in awarding voting systems contract to another bidder.
|
|||||
| In re Hilson, SJC-09852,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law where he had disbursed money he knew belonged to a seller in an interpleader action to himself and his client, the disbursement violated his fiduciary duty to the seller under escrow and trust theories, he had disclosed client confidences, and he knowingly had given false testimony.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Bd. of Appeals, No. 06-P-255,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for developers was reversed because abutters' right to appeal to trial court under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 17 was not mooted by developers' appeal to Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40B, §§ 20-23, since intervention in HAC proceeding was limited, and issues considered in judicial appeal were unlimited.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
