 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Harvey, No. 05-P-262,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to correct mittimus was proper as defendant was not entitled to credit for time he was in custody awaiting trial on initial indictments as he had received credit against statutory rape sentence. Sensible reading of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. h. 279, § 33A did not support claim that he was entitled to subtract time from both sentences.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Lender, No. 05-P-1270,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's judgment of conviction for resisting arrest under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 32B was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant resisted patfrisk, defendant struggled with officer until defendant was handcuffed, and defendant continued resisting until he was placed in police cruiser.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Yonaitis, Docket Number: 2005-730(001-005),
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indictment charging defendant with indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 13B for directing his stepson to masturbate while defendant watched was dismissed because the definition of touching under § 13B did not include touching of a victim's person by the victim's own hand at a defendant's direction.
|
|||||
| Haglund v. Philip Morris, Inc., SJC-09483,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Widow's wrongful death action, based on breach of warranty of merchantability under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-314(2)(c), was improperly dismissed before trial due to cigarette manufacturer's defense of unreasonable use. As cigarettes were inherently dangerous, decedent's use had to be "overwhelmingly unreasonable" for Corriea defense to apply.
|
|||||
| Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Mercurio, Docket Number: 2001-02426,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer's agent assisted the insureds in filling out an umbrella policy renewal form, the agent's knowledge was imputed as a matter of law to the insurer. Thus, there was no misrepresentation in regard to a family member's name being left off and the insurer did not have grounds to rescind the policy under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 186.
|
|||||
| Hir v. Kaye, Docket Number: 2004-04962,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6F was allowed because defendants' purported defense to the confirmation of the award was wholly insubstantial, frivolous, and not advanced in good faith (defendants were merely seeking to delay confirmation of the award to prevent plaintiff from collecting).
|
|||||
| New London County Ins. Co. v. Broan Nutone, LLC, Docket Number: BACV2002-0130,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A real estate broker was not liable for condominium fire, even though its agent saw that a heating light was smoking. Broker did not have duty to insurance companies and did not assume one. Agent agreed to but did not turn light off, but there was no proof that insurance companies relied on that fact or that agent's failure increased risk of harm.
|
|||||
| Silvestris v. Tantasqua Reg'l Sch. Dist., SJC-09540,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Equal Pay Act claims were not barred as statute of limitations was tolled when letter to association was treated as grievance. Although discretion to set salary levels of new teachers was exercised without well-defined criteria, lack of uniformity in starting salaries did not establish wage discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 105A.
|
|||||
| Zabota Cmty. Ctr., Inc. v. Frolova, Docket Number: 06-1909 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, May 18, 2006, Decided , May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, a former employee claimed not to have understood a noncompetition agreement and to have signed it out of fear of losing her job without any consideration other than not being fired, there was a factual issue as to what she understood and what compelled her to sign the agreement. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
