 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 153 Cordaville Assocs. v. Architectural Access Bd., Docket Number: 05-0267D,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a property owner failed to demonstrate the impracticability of the installation of curb cuts, and failed to rebut the assertion that they would substantially benefit people with disabilities, even if the Architectural Access Board failed to properly set forth its findings pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 11(8), the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Bardon Trimount, Inc. v. Guyott, Docket Number: 96-1665 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders' motions to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 37 and 12 was denied as neither corporation nor expert lost or destroyed evidence and it was not clear that unavailability of work papers unfairly prejudiced shareholders as they timely received notice and work papers were not only way of showing reasonableness of estimates.
|
|||||
| Lima v. Marshall, Docket Number: 03-02136,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action, driver and owner were entitled to summary judgment as injured party was unable to prove $ 2,000 in medical expenses as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6D; injured party could not meet threshold, as any attempt to attribute medical costs incurred after second accident to the first accident was purely speculative.
|
|||||
| Lussier v. Clark, Docket Number: 05-1328-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sister's motion to dismiss a brother's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6F counterclaim was allowed as the remedy under § 6F was only actionable upon a party's motion, after a determination by the fact finder that an action was frivolous and advanced in bad faith.
|
|||||
| Matthews v. D'Arcy, Docket Number: 88-2550-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's motion for summary judgment was allowed as client's failure to obtain expert testimony left client with no reasonable expectation of proving case because client had to show jury or judge that attorney's decisions deviated from established criminal defense practice norm in community and more probably than not caused verdict against him.
|
|||||
| Newell v. Dep't of Mental Retardation, SJC-09439,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A patient was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988, against a department of mental retardation because the parties' legal relationship was not materially altered, nor was a judicial imprimatur placed on the changes the department agreed to. No order allowing a finding that the department was in contempt was issued.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
