 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguila v. Stokes, Opinion No.: 98281, Docket Number: WOCV2006-31-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyers' third-party complaint, alleging that a cow purchased from a seller jumped a fence and caused an accident, was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Massachusetts long-arm statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3, because the sale was an isolated transaction of small value, and the seller did not conduct business in the state.
|
|||||
| Bouthiller v. Primo's Grille & Pizzaria, Inc., Opinion No.: 98279, Docket Number: 2005-01649B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a result of plaintiff customer's failure to file an affidavit in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60J as well as to file any opposition to defendant restaurant's summary judgment motion, the restaurant was entitled to summary judgment on the customer's negligent service of alcohol to an intoxicated person claims.
|
|||||
| Esturban v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., No. 06-P-590,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs, who claimed escalator was too narrow, failed to meet their burden of showing that there was a greater probability than not that escalator accident resulted from defendants' negligence; any determination of the dimensions essential to escalator's safe operation was generally beyond the scope of an average person's knowledge.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd., Opinion No.: 98277, Docket Number: 05-00934-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment was denied as trial court had personal jurisdiction over company under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a) as company transacted business in Massachusetts since it provided services and solicited business in Massachusetts. Conversion claim arose from company's transaction of business within Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Moreau v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., Opinion No.: 98815, Docket Number: 04-917,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT HAMPDEN, May 7, 2007, Decided, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was entitled to JNOV in employee's handicap discrimination case as while special questions to jury were erroneous, jury's negative response to question that employee was not qualified handicapped employee was dispositive; employee had to prove that fact to make out prima facie case under former Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(10) (now (16)).
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., SJC-09782,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a defamation case brought by a judge against a newspaper corporation and its reporter, the difference between a statement attributed to the judge and the statement that a prosecutor testified he told the reporter the judge had made could not be characterized as a minor discrepancy protected by the First Amendment.
|
|||||
| Tinkham v. Town of Mattapoisett, Docket Number: PLCV2004-01126-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT PLYMOUTH, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the deed conveyed by a prior owner of land to the town created a public trust with a specific charitable purpose, and the prior owner intended that the parcel be used for the purposes authorized by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40, § 8C and other Massachusetts statutes related to conservation of real property, the land exchange was invalid.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
