 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christian v. Edelin, No. 04-P-1391,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a purchaser and developer in a seller's action alleging breach of contract, as the letter in which the seller agreed to exercise an option on land he had previously sold to the purchaser included a mortgage option not included in the option agreement and the option was thus not properly exercised.
|
|||||
| Crosby v. Loisou, Docket Number: 01-722,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer's claim for specific performance of a sale of land was denied, as the developer knew that a restriction existed on the property which would have required the building of a road at the time he initially entered into the contract, and ordering specific performance as requested would have amounted to a windfall for the developer.
|
|||||
| Endodontic Assoc. of Lexington, Inc. v. Johnston-Neeser, Docket Number: 05-3319,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a doctor was not liable for any part of a corporation's claims against the defendants, she did not have to indemnify the defendants for their damages; if the third-party complaint were not amended to address the doctor as a counterclaim defendant, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 14, it would be stricken and dismissed.
|
|||||
| Endodontic Assoc. of Lexington, Inc. v. Johnston-Neeser, Docket Number: 05-3319,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss counterclaims was denied in part as, inter alia, alleged oral promises upon which breach of contract claims was based survived written agreements if operable at time of execution of agreements and doctors pled with sufficient particularity that employer committed common-law fraud by intentionally making misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles, Docket Number: BRCV2006-00239,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BRISTOL, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 1/2, requiring installation of an ignition interlock device, became effective before the licensee sought the restoration of his unrestricted license, § 24 1/2 was not an ex post facto law under Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 24. The statute was remedial, as it was designed to protect the public from drunk drivers.
|
|||||
| Hefni v. Microwave Eng'g Corp., Docket Number: 06-0133 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate's motion for order directing corporation to hold stockholders' meeting pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, § 7.03 was allowed as 1985 Amendment to Articles of Organization never took effect as it was not filed with state secretary, estate had presumptive rights to demand meeting, and holding of meeting was not logistically complicated.
|
|||||
| Solimine v. Mass. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, No. 05-P-110,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was insufficient evidence presented by an insurer to dispel a genuine issue of fact as to whether defective maintenance or wear and tear was the cause for the entry of water into an insured's home, the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on the insurance claim.
|
|||||
| Sweeney v. DeLuca, Docket Number: 04-2338,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Among other things, buyers' claims for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation survived as practice was to immediately stop pursuing home of seller who could not or would not give them assurances regarding structural integrity of home and absence of water problems. Negligence claim failed as there was no evidence defendants assumed duty of care.
|
|||||
| Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co., Docket Number: 03-02818,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 17, 2006, Decided , March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer one's summary judgment motion was allowed as insurer one was not obligated to provide optional bodily injury to others coverage to driver one because he was driving a construction company vehicle for a business purpose and an exception to the business use exclusion did not apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
