 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Leneski, No. 04-P-1645,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly admitted footage showing defendant stealing lottery tickets copied onto a compact disc, as digital images stored on such a disc was subject to the same rules as videotape, and the testimony by the owner of a store was sufficient to authenticate the footage.
|
|||||
| Gurwitz v. Mercantile/Image Press, Inc., Docket Number: 05-1887A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that business climate changed, making it difficult for corporation to pay for shares under redemption agreement with shareholder, was not an unanticipated circumstance that could support impossibility of performance defense to breach of contract action, and as purpose of agreement was not vitiated, there was no frustration of purpose defense.
|
|||||
| Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, Docket Number: 04-2349A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former wife's attorney was entitled to judgment in the former husband's abuse of process action and on the attorney's counterclaims because the attorney acted solely to preserve assets for the wife's benefit in the wife's divorce action and with no ulterior purpose in obtaining an attachment against an office building owned by the husband's LLC.
|
|||||
| State Bd. of Ret. v. Woodward, SJC-09575,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that a state pension board's ruling that a former state legislator forfeited his pension benefits pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, § 15(4), based on convictions for bribery and fraud, was time barred, as the statute was subject to any statute of limitation.
|
|||||
| William Palumbo Ins. Agency v. Irwin Bus. Fin. Corp., Docket Number: 04-1496,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customers' summary judgment motions were denied as judgment in another suit against telecommunications firm that declared that contracts were rescinded and unenforceable did not bind assignee finance companies as there was no privity between telecommunications firm and finance companies for purposes of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Hudson, SJC-09593,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective, although he did not use recantation affidavit of prosecution witness, a drug dealer, to impeach his recorded testimony that was admitted at second trial. Witness was impeached with his convictions, and counsel used reasonable trial strategy, as he knew that using affidavit would let officer testify that it was coerced.
|
|||||
| Crivello v. All-Pak Mach. Sys., SJC-09525,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to appoint interpreter for a worker, Italian immigrant, in her negligence suit was not error since worker had not shown under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221C, § 2 that she had difficulty understanding English. Worker communicated in English and comprehended English, and jury had sought clarification when they did not understand worker's testimony.
|
|||||
| Moriarty v. Sullivan, Docket Number: 2004-010,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT HAMPDEN, May 16, 2006, Decided , May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The city defendants' special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H, was denied because the city defendants were not seeking redress of the wrongs done them, and, therefore, were not engaged in the type of "constitutional petitioning activity" protected by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H.
|
|||||
| Simons v. Keiser Indus., Docket Number: 03-4525,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General contractor's summary judgment motion was allowed as a worker was an employee under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 102(13) since he did not have a written contract, employed no assistants, and had no employees under his supervision and the worker did not supply the necessary tools or have the right to control the progress of his work.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
