 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Coughlin, Docket Number: 2004-01739,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was sentenced to serve 18 months of incarceration for operating vehicle on public road while under influence of alcohol and while driving recklessly or negligently so as to endanger lives of public, causing child's death, to reflect seriousness of offense, to promote respect for law, and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
|
|||||
| Flanders v. Levy Home Entm't, Inc., Docket Number: BRCV04-776-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BRISTOL, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was denied as to disability and age discrimination claims as record lent itself to possibility employer perceived employee as handicapped when considering prior knee injury together with recent hip and back injury and there was evidence reasons proffered for termination were false, from which jury could infer discriminatory intent.
|
|||||
| Langan v. Falmouth Conservation Comm'n, Docket Number: BACV2003-0733,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner's request for variance from conservation regulations for a dock was denied; he did not satisfy Falmouth, Mass., Wetlands Regs. 10.13(e). He did not show that dock would increase shellfish protection, he did not show that dock would have less impact on shellfish than his current boating activities, and shellfish would have been displaced.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
