 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cahaly v. Benistar Prop. Exch. Trust Co., No. 05-P-1717,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Mass. R.Civ.P. 60. Although the trial court had expressed doubts about the credibility of the evidence, an affidavit by a person who had previously taken the Fifth Amendment, it had also found that it was material, likely to affect the outcome if believed, and admissible.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Burts, No. 05-P-309,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's murder prosecution, while the prosecutor improperly criticized defendant's trial counsel, inferentially urged the jurors to trust police witnesses, and aligned himself with the jury during closing, those errors, unpreserved and standing alone, did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Desire, Opinion No.: 97817, Docket Number: 07-1387 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A preliminary injunction was granted to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against numerous defendants who were involved in a "foreclosure rescue" scheme which targeted financially strapped homeowners facing foreclosure, as the necessary elements of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and the balancing of the harm were shown.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Dillon D., SJC-09783,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a juvenile possessed over 50 bullets in a clear plastic bag and was observed showing the bag to other students, the public safety exception to Miranda allowed the school police officer to question the juvenile about the presence of a firearm without the presence of an interested adult.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Ogden O., SJC-09751,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a victim was permanently scarred after juvenile set him on fire, the evidence was sufficient to adjudicate the juvenile a delinquent on the charge of mayhem (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 14) because jury could have inferred his specific intent to maim or disfigure from circumstances of the incident and from the nature of the victim's injuries.
|
|||||
| DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Stryker Biotech, LLC, Opinion No.: 98013, Docket Number: 07-1464 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As employee was sophisticated person who willingly entered into non-competition agreement with former employer, he could not freely walk away from that agreement. As there was some evidence both employers competed, preliminary injunction entered restraining employee and current employer from disclosing former employer's confidential information.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. Fung, Docket Number: 07-1284 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied corporate president and corporations' motion for preliminary injunction staying arbitration demanded by former employee; they did not carry burden of showing that there was a likelihood of success on the merits, that they would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that harm to them without injunction outweighed harm to him.
|
|||||
| Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, SJC-09726,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred dismissing plaintiff's slip and fall case on grounds he could not prove store owner had actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous condition. Under the mode of operation approach to premises liability, plaintiff satisfied notice requirement by proving that foreseeable unsafe condition resulted from owner's mode of operation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
