 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Citizens Bank v. Travers, No. 06-P-1429,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving attorney's fees under a note, a municipal court erred in awarding only $ 300 of the $ 4,200 requested for attorney's fees because the note was a contract of adhesion, drawn entirely in the bank's favor, and the municipal court made no findings explaining the decision; the amount awarded appeared unreasonably low.
|
|||||
| Kennie v. Natural Res. Dep't, No. 06-P-463.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as constable's statements that he was "mandated to do whatever it (took)" to keep dock from going in were not threats under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I. It was unreasonable to assume that statement expressed intent to inflict physical harm. Fear of further spending was not financial harm under Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
|
|||||
| Kniskern v. Mayer, Opinion No.: 98292, Docket Number: 2006-1028B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners were not entitled to summary judgment under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c) on their claim against adjacent landowners for declaratory relief from a restriction in an agreement, which prohibited building on a certain lot for 15 years, because the terms of the agreement were clear and unambiguous, and thus enforceable as written.
|
|||||
| Pilon's Case, No. 06-P-858,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reviewing board of the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents erred in ordering the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund to reimburse an employee for the benefit of a successor insurer because Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175D, §§ 1(2) and 5(1)(d), prohibited the Fund from making payments that benefitted an insurer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
