|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Massachusetts - May 1 - May 2, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
World Care Clinical, Inc. v. Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., Opinion No.: 98045, Docket Number: 05-03218,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action involving, inter alia, breach of contract claims, plaintiff could not be estopped from pursuing its Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A claim as to renal and carotid studies as a choice of law provision did not bar such a claim when the claim was not limited to unfair acts arising from the contract but encompassed the parties' entire relationship.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Farazi v. Caffey, Opinion No.: 98286, Docket Number: 03-0834-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Attorney's motion to dismiss under Mass. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) was denied as jurisdiction was proper under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a) since attorney had participated in drafting of operative documents for franchise for corporate defendants, and franchisee's claim had origins in legal documents drafted by attorney, which satisfied but-for test.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Pilgrim Ins. Co. v. Molard, Opinion No.: 98283, Docket Number: 04-2371C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a taxi cab passenger, who allegedly suffered injury in a collision but who could not identify the cab driver, failed to notify an uninsured motorist carrier within 24 hours of the hit-and-run accident as required under the policy, and because the reporting delay caused the insurer prejudice, the passenger was not entitled to coverage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|