 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cappadona v. Doe Builders, Inc., Docket Number: 04-1782,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyers were granted summary judgment on a seller's claims of refusal to honor a purchase and sale agreement, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as the seller did not have marketable title to a property beyond a reasonable doubt on the closing date as the property appeared to be subject to adverse claims.
|
|||||
| Chapman v. Katz, No. 04-P-1702,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Automated teller machine kiosk was trade fixture because it was installed by subtenant, was subtenant's property, was specific to subtenant's business, could be removed with little damage to property, and when removed did not lose its nature as personal chattel; thus, tenants were not required to seek lessors' permission before its construction.
|
|||||
| Coblenz v. Vakili, Docket Number: 01-00978,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's motion for dismissal under Mass. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(4) and 41(b)(2) was allowed as patient failed to conduct any discovery, to respond to the doctor's request for the production of documents, to fully respond to interrogatories, to otherwise prosecute action, or to comply with September 2004 order to comply with Mass. Super. Ct. R. 9A.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Guzman, SJC-09459,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in declaring Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 55 constitutional (it did not violate Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 30) because it was valid exercise of legislative authority where it called for dismissal of charges, in judge's discretion, only after accord and satisfaction was executed; it did not give judge unfettered discretion.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Henriquez, No. 05-P-267,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because resentencing judge did not base reasons for imposing increased term of commitment on information that was not before the first sentencing judge, defendant's sentences had to be vacated under the Hyatt rule--to preserve the appearance of fairness even in the absence of actual vindictiveness. Resentencing by a different judge was warranted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
