 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beaupre v. Town of Douglas, Docket Number: 05-1049-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employee's allegation of a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148 by a town was dismissed because it was clear that the employee's suit was not timely filed; it was filed six years after the alleged violation, but pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 150, a suit had to be filed within three years of a violation.
|
|||||
| Caisse v. Discepolo, Docket Number: 2005-00109,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Client's motion for summary judgment was allowed only as to first phase of legal malpractice case as it related to failure to complete service in timely manner because attorney was negligent in filing suit on client's behalf in federal court, but never attempting to obtain timely service on elected officials and employees of public institutions.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Acevedo, SJC-09577,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) because defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request reasonable provocation jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter. In asserting that he was attacked by victim and others and that he feared for his life, defendant presented adequate evidence of reasonable provocation.
|
|||||
| Dolphin Fleet of Provincetown, Inc. v. Provincetown Pub. Pier Corp., Docket Number: BACV2004-0004,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Provincetown Public Pier Corporation's decision to increase certain licensing fees for business operators using a public pier to operate from was neither arbitrary nor capricious. It was based on a study of fees charged by other public piers and was only made after several public hearings were conducted.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Bartolomeo, Docket Number: 2002-1197,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85A, the principal/owner's motion for a new trial was allowed because the jury found that the agent/operator's conduct was not the proximate cause of the injured party's injuries; without causation, there was no liability on the part of the agent and thus no liability could be imputed to the principal.
|
|||||
| Hyland v. Hyland, Docket Number: 05-1073C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grandparents could not enforce oral agreement conveying lot to grandson in consideration of promise he would build a house and live there indefinitely. The agreement violated the Statute of Frauds, the statute of limitations in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2 had run years earlier, and the agreement was likely an improper restraint on alienation.
|
|||||
| Mensah v. Goedken, Docket Number: 01-1336C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was not proper as the circumstances surrounding the doctors' treatment of a mother were unclear and each doctor could have exacerbated the alleged injuries to her and her son. Further, the status of a medical center was not definite in light of a merger. Thus, immunity under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act might not have applied.
|
|||||
| Michael D. Harrington Dev., Inc. v. Bovaird, Docket Number: 01-1271A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where a corporation sought to compel the transfer of property to the corporation, judgment was entered for property owners because there was no writing that satisfied the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 259, § 1, and the corporation's application for a preliminary subdivision plan approval was not in reasonable reliance on a contract.
|
|||||
| Mills-Ort v. Germano, Docket Number: 02-1063C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice action, court denied resident's motion for summary judgment based on immunity under Massachusetts Tort Claims Act as circumstances surrounding resident's treatment of patient were unclear; issues existed regarding, inter alia, amount of discretion resident had in treating patient and seeking help from attending physician.
|
|||||
| Ortiz v. O'Hearn, Docket Number: 02-2711C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a home buyer did not file an action against a broker until more than four years after she clearly was aware of her potential claims, the filing was not within the required time for either tort claims or for Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Thus, the entire action was untimely under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2A and 5A.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
