 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baily v. Hillside Sch., Inc., Docket Number: 02-1234,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for school on counselor's promissory estoppel claim as when counselor pressed desire to modify employment agreement's terms, headmaster told her that she should either attend orientation meetings, or she should leave. Counselor left, which was breach of agreement. Breach permitted school to rescind employment offer.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Tang, No. 04-P-964,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of defendant's son's statements to police as spontaneous utterances did not violate defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause and Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. XII as statements were not testimonial per se since they were made in response to questions posed by police on emergency basis while police were securing volatile scene.
|
|||||
| Martin-Kirkland v. UPS, Docket Number: 03-4520 H,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, April 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defamation claim and employee's breach of privacy claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B, survived employer's summary judgment motion; issues existed as to publication of her poor work. Exclusivity law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 24, barred claims of negligence and infliction of emotional distress, as her psychological injuries related to work.
|
|||||
| Mauro v. Hadlock Law Offices, PC, Docket Number: 05-0146B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the law firm's summary judgment motion in a case where the law firm paid off the wrong pre-existing mortgages of the mortgage holders; a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether the mortgage holders were clients of the law firm, and that factual issue also impacted whether a breach of contract or negligence occurred.
|
|||||
| Town of Middleborough v. Hous. Appeals Comm., No. 04-P-839,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposed project included subsidized housing and, thus, came within definition of "low or moderate income housing" in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40B, § 20; tax exemption given to bank under 12 U.S.C.S. § 1433 constituted government subsidy, and agreement by government to forgo tax revenues from holders of debt instruments issued by bank was subsidy.
|
|||||
| Blair v. Kadish, Docket Number: 2001-02508,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No ground for summary judgment under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 for corporation and medical center existed in patient's suit; references in depositions and documents indicated that their supervisor had control over a doctor's schedule, thus imputing his liability to patient to the movants and disproving their claim that the doctor was not their employee.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Choeurn, SJC-09363,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first degree murder prosecution, as there was no error in the jury instructions concerning a witness's out-of-court identification or on honest but mistaken identification, defense counsel was not ineffective under the Sixth Amendment or Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 12 for failing to object to them.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Senechal, No. 04-P-776,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vice-president and coordinator's motion for JNOV on negligence claim was properly allowed as patient failed to show that vice-president's and coordinator's failure to investigate caused her direct physical harm independent of her emotional distress.
|
|||||
| Frishman v. Maginn, Docket Number: 04-0673 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to defendant in a contract suit involving the transfer of certain shares. The contract violated the public policy underlying the Securities Act of 1933 and SEC Regulation D because plaintiffs' investing group contained unaccredited investors and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A did not apply to deals between private citizens.
|
|||||
| Haufler v. Zotos, SJC-09502,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's trespassing on plaintiff's land and harassing him, his neighbors, and his workers violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11H of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, because a reasonable person could have felt threatened by defendant's conduct, which interfered with plaintiff's right to use and enjoy his property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
