 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Billings v. Mass. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, Docket Number: 02-679,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an underlying complaint against an insured sought recovery for emotional harm and emotional distress, which did not constitute bodily injury, the insurer properly denied coverage; because the insurer had no duty to defend, it was entitled to summary judgment under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Woodbine, Docket Number: 2004-10365,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite fact Miranda warnings given during tape-recorded interview were indisputably flawed, defendant received complete warnings within half-hour before taped interview, and that was sufficient to meet Miranda requirements. Comments made prior to tape recording were admissible as evidence suggested defendant indicated desire to speak to officer.
|
|||||
| Grandoit v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Docket Number: MICV2005-00913-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a civil action involving discontinued workers' compensation payments, the insurer's motion for summary judgment was allowed because the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents had exclusive jurisdiction over the claim, and principles of issue and claim preclusion barred the action.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Lab. Corp. of Am., No. 04-P-1472,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in denying laboratory corporation's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was sufficient evidence from which a rational factfinder could decide that laboratory corporation was negligent in failing to call patient's surgeon regarding patient's blood test results when results contained "panic values."
|
|||||
| Mscisz v. Kashner Davidson Secs. Corp., SJC-09529,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A single justice of the state supreme court did not err in denying the customers' request for declaratory relief because even if an out-of-state attorney's representation of a party at an arbitration proceeding in Massachusetts might constitute the practice of law, this conduct did not provide a basis to vacate an arbitration award.
|
|||||
| Neal v. Purity Supreme, Inc., Docket Number: 04-02132-L2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the property owner was obligated to keep the premises safe in regard to structural alterations and repairs under a lease with the injured person's employer, and the construction of a handrail constituted such a structural alteration, the property owner was not entitled to summary judgment as to the injured person's negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Ortiz v. One Beacon Ins. Co., Docket Number: 05-01047-L2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment and declared that, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, §§ 1 and 3, arbitration was the appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute between the insured and the insurer regarding the insured's claim for uninsured motorist benefits.
|
|||||
| Sea Pines Condo. III Ass'n v. Mostyn, Docket Number: 1999-00428,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for trustee on condominium association's adverse possession claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 21 as association's semi-annual pruning was not actual and exclusive use, use was not notorious as for much of period, area was not trimmed, and if first trimming was in early 1980s, 20-year requirement was not satisfied.
|
|||||
| Superadio L.P. v. Winstar Radio Prods., LLC, SJC-09542,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration panel's order imposing monetary sanctions on plaintiff for failing to produce in discovery documents defendant needed to prove its damages should not have been vacated under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 12(a)(3), as arbitration rules and parties' arbitration agreement implicitly authorized awarding such sanctions for discovery violations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
