 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mobil Pipe Line Co. v. Providence & Worcester R.R. Co., Opinion No.: 98290, Docket Number: 07-0833,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 15, 2007, Decided , May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction was allowed as there was public policy in favor of efficient energy supplies and minimization of harm to the environment in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 164, §§ 69G-S. While railroad would not be irreparably harmed by maintenance of status quo, transportation of gasoline by truck would irreparably harm environment.
|
|||||
| Town of Duxbury v. Rossi, No. 06-P-88.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In awarding a police officer benefits under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 111F, an arbitrator did not exceed the scope of the parties' reference because the parties clearly authorized the arbitrator to rule on whether the town properly denied the officer benefits, and to determine a remedy in the event he concluded that the denial was improper.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Cabral, No. 06-P-987,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant did not attempt to retrieve his saliva after spitting on a public street, he lacked a subjective expectation of privacy in his spittle or in the DNA evidence derived therefrom; a prosecutor's use of the phrase "I think" to preface remarks did not imply that the prosecutor had personal knowledge or was stating a personal belief.
|
|||||
| Lichtenstein v. G&K, Opinion No.: 98259, Docket Number: 01-0380,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in a tort action, which complained that the jury verdict was too low, was denied because nothing in the testimony, the documentary evidence, or the court's own consideration of the entire case supported any contention that the verdict was tainted, improper, or a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
| Lowinger v. G&K LLC, Opinion No.: 98260, Docket Number: 03-0358,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for an additur, or in the alternative, for a new trial, was denied because nothing in the testimony, the documentary evidence, or the court's own consideration of the entire case supported any contention that the verdict was tainted, improper, or a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
| Pellegrino v. Springfield Parking Auth., No. 06-P-432.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for parking authority (PA) was affirmed as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32 had been excluded from list of statutes to which PA employees were not subject, and employee violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, § 91(a) by retiring from City, collecting retirement benefits, and earning over $ 90,000 per year in salary from PA.
|
|||||
| Powell v. Stevens, No. 05-P-1280,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court correctly concluded that the filing of a lis pendens memorandum in connection with litigation affecting the title to real estate was within the absolute privilege afforded judicial proceedings in Massachusetts as it was the functional equivalent traditional litigation instruments and alternative remedies existed to right any harm.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Burke, No. 05-P-1433.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a tenant sued a landlord for a security deposit, a finding that the landlord did not breach Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, § 15B(3)(a) was vacated because the statute required the landlord to put the security deposit in an interest-bearing account located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and not just in a bank with branches in the Commonwealth.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
