 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abbott v. Arthur Mackenzie Prods., Docket Number: 01-1287 BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment by the wife of a business owner was granted as to plaintiff's claims against the wife alleging conversion, because there was no evidence that the wife was involved in, or had any knowledge of, the owner's fraudulent actions, so there were no grounds to reach the wife's property.
|
|||||
| BPR Group Ltd. P'ship v. Bendetson, Docket Number: 04-0168 BLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-venturers were granted partial summary judgment against a joint venturer as the dissolutions of three joint ventures contravened the joint venture agreements and, therefore, were governed by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 108A, § 31(2). Further, the co-venturers had the authority to continue the joint ventures under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 108A, § 38(2)(b).
|
|||||
| Lamarche v. Lussier, No. 05-P-18.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss abuse prevention orders obtained against him pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A, as the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction where the actions that the orders were based on did not occur in Massachusetts and he had no contacts under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3.
|
|||||
| McLaughlin v. Amirsaleh, No. 04-P-997,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mortgage sought to have been enforced by a California attorney secured by the property of a client he had loaned money to was ordered invalid in an interpleader and declaratory judgment action brought by a special master to settle the creditors' rights to the sale proceeds since the mortgage was against Massachusetts' public policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
