 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fred Hutnak Dev. Corp. v. Petrillo, Docket Number: 2004-00285C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was no evidence that the proposed subdivision plan complied with the requirements of Uxbridge, Mass., Subdivision Rules and Regulations § 5(D)(1) or Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81M, as the town was without authority to maintain a drainage easement, the planning board properly disapproved the plan.
|
|||||
| LaFleche v. Sturbridge Corp., Docket Number: 05-1687-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town could not rely on grounds involving Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, §§ 4, 10 as basis for dismissing suit filed by the administrator of a decedent's estate, but the Town was entitled to summary judgment in the action as the decedent was an adult trespasser on road where he was killed and there was no assertion Town acted in wilful or reckless manner.
|
|||||
| Rodman v. Murphy, Docket Number: 05-0781,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss claims for age discrimination and intentional interference with employment relationship was denied because the employee's only recourse for discrimination, where the employer had less than six employees, was Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 103, and the allegations were sufficient to sustain the employee's intentional interference claim.
|
|||||
| Wang v. Biogen Idec, Inc., Docket Number: 05-1562,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion to compel arbitration under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 2 was denied as Share Restriction Agreement did not incorporate arbitration clauses in Independent Consulting Agreement and Project Agreement. Independent Consulting Agreement contained integration clause, which undercut claim that contracts were to be read together.
|
|||||
| Wilfert Bros. Realty Co. v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination, Docket Number: 02-02671,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commission had jurisdiction over employer as employees were properly aggregated for purposes of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B's jurisdictional minimum. Employer and sister company did not differentiate among employees, both companies had indicia of control over employee's work, and both companies shared substantial financial interrelation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
