 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Guisti, SJC-09093,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial judge's conclusion that the jury were not exposed to extraneous influences was amply supported by the evidence and the findings, neither a new trial nor further proceedings were warranted.
|
|||||
| Furtado v. Town of Plymouth, No. 06-P-892,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because allegations about a police officer's off-duty behavior clearly concerned allegations of criminal conduct, and because the officer was granted immunity, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(2) was not violated when the officer was ordered to submit to a polygraph test.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Atchue, Docket Number: 2005-02255,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 12, 2007, Decided, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress evidence obtained by Commonwealth as a result of search warrant was granted because the affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant omitted crucial facts and misstated facts; among other things, detective acted with reckless disregard when he stated "benzodiazepine" was "brand name" for "date rape drug" Rohypnol.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Braley, SJC-09555,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Coventurer's statement defendant "shot into the crowd" was admissible as, inter alia, adoptive admission of defendant because defendant did not respond to or correct statement at time made. Statement to trooper was admissible because it was spontaneous and not result on interrogation but merely comment made during "light conversation and banter."
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Zinkievich, Opinion No.: 98808, Docket Number: 2006-00718,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 12, 2007, Decided, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was denied as interview of defendant at high school was voluntary. Defendant did not have to waive Miranda rights as interview took place in place familiar to defendant that was not regarded as inherently coercive atmosphere. There was no special rule under Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. XII for questioning students at school.
|
|||||
| First Mass. Bank, N.A. v. Florian, Opinion No.: 98474, Docket Number: 02-4007 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank's negligent misrepresentation claim against two corporate officers failed as the alleged misrepresentations were based on legal issues for which it was reasonable for them to rely upon counsel. A negligence claim against a law firm failed as it was unreasonable for the bank to rely on the state insurance division's approval of a form.
|
|||||
| Zompetti v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Md., Inc., Docket Number: 05-03172,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer was not entitled to summary judgment on purchasers' breach of warranty claim because the manufacturer had not submitted affirmative evidence negating the purchasers' claim that the time and location of the warranty repairs were unreasonable so as to defeat the warranty's essential purpose.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
