 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Lithuanian Naturalization Club v. Bd. of Health, SJC-09501,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town board of health properly enacted regulation prohibiting smoking at all times on the premises of local membership associations without exceeding its statutory authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. c. 111, § 31, and the regulation of smoking was not preempted by state ban on smoking at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 270, § 22.
|
|||||
| Avon Tape, Inc. v. Shuman, Docket Number: 04-0068 BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Son could not breach buy/sell agreement in order to claim shareholder status in corporation one to support shareholder derivative suit as corporation one did not breach a buy/sell agreement by failing to close within 60 days of son's resignation since there was no provision that time was of the essence and the parties acquiesced in the delay.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Hurd, No. 05-P-147,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reasonable doubt instructions given in the case did not violate defendants' due process rights because, according to the United States Supreme Court's Victor decision, an instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly stated the government's burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Goddard v. O'Connell, Docket Number: 2005-2338,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where husband seller signed contract to sell real property, owned as tenants by entirety, but wife seller did not, there was no enforceable contract, as Massachusetts Statute of Frauds, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 259, § 1, was not satisfied. Other than marital relationship, there was no evidence that wife authorized husband to act as her agent.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Wellfleet Conservation Comm'n, Docket Number: 05-290,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action brought by plaintiff in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 4, plaintiff failed to show that she had suffered any injury different in nature or magnitude from that of the general public when conservation commission approved a proposal to build a single-family dwelling with conditions.
|
|||||
| Kiaresh v. Vivenzio, Docket Number: 2004-0630,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT HAMPDEN, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncle's motion for summary judgment was allowed as teenager's negligence claim failed because, even if uncle knew that rear brakes of bicycle were inoperable, uncle did not owe teenager, unauthorized user of bike, duty of care cognizable at law. Teenager's parents' loss of consortium claim failed as it required finding of negligence.
|
|||||
| Lakew v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., No. 05-P-672,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying authority's request for comparative negligence jury instruction because a rational jury could have found that the employee opened the door of his locked office to a stranger in violation of his supervisor's instructions, that that act was negligent, and that that negligence contributed to the causation of his injuries.
|
|||||
| Parmentier v. Gadoury, Docket Number: 04-1580-C (04SU0064),
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners had no easement by grant through easement plan, as easement had to be in writing, and no one signed plan. No easement came from quitclaim deed; owners were not parties to deed and thus had no rights under it. Easement of estoppel existed based on neighbors' prior agreement, but fence and drainage pipe had to comply with easement description.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
