 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chesnis v. Law, Docket Number: 2005-00002,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a complaint failed to state any averments of the Cardinal's alleged negligent, intentional, or fraudulent conduct in regard to the alleged sexual abuse of the father's son and other victims, it could not be fairly read as giving the Cardinal adequate notice of the father's claims. Thus, it was dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Cahill, SJC-09649,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for required finding of not guilty on accosting or annoying a person of opposite sex charge under § 53 was properly denied as defendant's act of grabbing victim from behind really tight around shoulders was offensive, victim felt panicky and frightened due to behavior, and it caused her to have trouble concentrating at work.
|
|||||
| Pina v. Mass. SPCA, SJC-09466,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner did not file a Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 2, § 21 memorandum setting forth the reasons why she could not obtain relief on appeal from any criminal conviction or order that she forfeit her animals under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 104(f), the owner was not entitled to relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3.
|
|||||
| Berish v. Bornstein, Docket Number: BACV198800372A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit by condominium trustees, the trustees were entitled to damages for defective fire walls and the lack of proper fire stops based on a theory of breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Inadequate fire walls, which did not obtain the requisite fire resistance rating, were a defect caused by defendants' improper design or workmanship.
|
|||||
| City of Lawrence v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. 05-P-1535,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly overruled an agency decision which invalidated the promotion of a police officer because pursuant to the terms of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 59, a city properly included time spent in a police reserve force to allow the promoted officer and other officers to meet the time in position requirement to take the promotion exam.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Richmond, Docket Number: 2005-159(001-003),
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, May 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's statements were made well within the six-hour safe harbor for police questioning and after the "cut-off" time for new arrestees, there was no indication that the actual delay in arraignment was unreasonable under Mass. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1); thus, defendant's motion to suppress was denied.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Weichell, SJC-09556,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Confession letter of defendant's friend was not newly discovered warranting new trial over a decade after defendant's murder conviction because he did not suffer from any mental impairment preventing him from pursuing exculpatory evidence and because he deliberately failed to ascertain letter's contents long before he filed second new trial motion.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Brazie, No. 05-P-426,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rape conviction was reversed as his confrontation rights under the Confrontation Clause of U.S. Const. amend. VI and Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. XII were violated because his younger daughter's uncross-examined testimony was considered in connection with an indictment alleging that he raped his older daughter.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Starkweather, Docket Number: 20050080,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was allowed and his statements to the police after he asserted his rights to remain silent and to counsel were suppressed as the police re-initiated an inquiry that was designed to elicit an incriminating response by appealing to defendant's concern to avoid embarrassment to his family.
|
|||||
| Every v. Lussier, Docket Number: 2005-01978B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 240, § 11, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 185, § 1(e), a superior court had no jurisdiction to hear claim of landowner against easement holder; while complaint was for trespass, landowner actually sought to determine easement's validity, and Land Court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine validity of encumbrances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
