 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boehm v. Premier Ins. Co., SJC-09638,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action by a chiropractor to recover PIP benefits for medical services rendered, insurance company had right to jury trial since Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 34M, which authorized a medical provider to commence an action in contract against insurer to recover unpaid benefits for treatment provided to insured, also conferred right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Belcher, SJC-09650,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for dissemination of matter harmful to minor under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 28, was upheld as there was no error in jury instructions; in hearing defendant's testimony, coupled with judge's instruction, jury could not have found actions "accidental" or "negligent" and incorrectly convicted defendant on basis of inadvertent conduct.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Pierce, No. 04-P-457,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The use of defendant's overheard statements was not unlawful, because the jail cell intercom system fell within one of the wiretap statute's enumerated exemptions, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(D)(1)(b) as it was an office intercommunication system used in the ordinary course of business. Thus, the motion to suppress was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Grandmaison v. Fiesta Shows, Docket Number: 05-01713,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's motion to dismiss a Mass. R. Civ. P. 14(a) third-party complaint was allowed as to an indemnification claim as any liability on the part of either defendant would be predicated on its own breach of duty, so neither had a right to common-law indemnification from the father due to the father's negligent supervision of plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Mammone v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, SJC-09609,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A handicapped employee who engaged in egregious misconduct, sufficiently inimical to the interests of his employer that it would result in the termination of a nonhandicapped employee, was not a qualified handicapped person within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B and, therefore, was not entitled to the protection of that statute.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. UMASS Mem. Health Care, Inc., Docket Number: 2001-CV-2217A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 12, 2006, Decided , May 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that a resident, who was accused of malpractice, was employed by the Commonwealth was not determinative. Because the merger agreements did not establish on whose behalf the resident was acting and did not conclusively establish his employment status, summary judgement was denied on the issue of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 2 immunity.
|
|||||
| Spinosa v. Stonecoat USA, Inc., Docket Number: 2004-1882C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cross-motions for summary judgment were denied as there was fact issue as to whether exemption in § 14 (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 142A, § 14) of Massachusetts Home Improvement Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 142A, applied as job involved installation of finish floor covering on roof deck, installation of new roof (which was later excluded), and sloping of deck.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
