 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguila v. Mass. Tpk. Auth., Docket Number: 06-031,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 15, 2007, Decided, June 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Turnpike authority was not entitled to summary judgment in truck driver's negligence action as it was unclear whether or not Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 81A, § 20 was driver's exclusive remedy; question of fact remained as to whether defect in fence maintained by the authority that allowed cow to enter the roadway proximately caused the driver's injuries.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. DePeiza, SJC-09810,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact police encountered defendant after midnight in high-crime area with increasing incidences of firearm violence, defendant was walking with right arm stiff and straight against body, he appeared nervous, and he repeatedly hid right side from officers' view provided reasonable suspicion to support investigatory stop and patfrisk of defendant.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Kachoul, No. 06-P-1374,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant admitted to encounter with victim, identification testimony was relevant because, inter alia, victim's ability to identify defendant months after incident was relevant to establishing strength of victim's memory and powers of observation and recollection. Failure to supplement a standard fresh complaint instruction was not error.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Morgan, SJC-08813,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for required finding was denied as evidence pointed more strongly to defendant's culpability; statements showed he was willing to kill victim and there was no evidence co-venturer shared hostility toward victim. Witness testimony was inadmissible as statement against penal interest where defendant failed to show third party was unavailable.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Simmons, No. 06-P-428,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant told therapist of plan to kill former girlfriend and her present boyfriend, knowing, based on disclosure by therapist, that if defendant made any statements regarding defendant harming himself or another, therapist would be obligated to inform the appropriate authorities, was sufficient to support revocation of probation.
|
|||||
| Levy v. Bd. of Registration in Dentistry, Opinion No.: 98476, Docket Number: 07-2290 B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary suspension of a dentist's license, without due notice and a hearing, was reversed for lack of due process, and a dentistry board was enjoined from taking further action until he was convicted of pending criminal charges or pled guilty to them, and he was upon due notice, given a hearing under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 52D.
|
|||||
| Bunker Hill Ins. Co. v. Falcone, Opinion No.: 98601, Docket Number: 04-335,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an insurance policy excluded corrosion and an adjuster's oral representations did not create coverage as he had no real or apparent authority to accept coverage, and the policy required that any policy change had to be in writing, summary judgment was entered as to the insurance company's obligation to indemnify the insureds for oil clean-up.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. Lint, No. 06-P-1208,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to dismiss was reversed as state police sergeant had absolute privilege in testifying before state police trial board under former Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22C, § 13 and in preliminary statements since board had authority and provided procedural protections that differentiated quasi-judicial board from purely administrative one.
|
|||||
| Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mass. Water Res. Auth., Opinion No.: 98649, Docket Number: 05-5060 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted as change in example of Maximum Aggregate Loss Amount (MALA) between Tables 1 and 2 was clear error in calculation or typography, not a mutual mistake warranting rescission. Parties never agreed to change MALA, and did not change guarantee that MALA was $ 10.43 per $ 100 of payroll.
|
|||||
| O'Brien v. Pearson, SJC-09883,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minority shareholder established that other shareholders breached their fiduciary duty to him by unilaterally changing corporation's plans to build subdivision. However, he did not prove that the breach proximately caused him lost profits; due to multiple contingencies, existence of profitable subdivision absent breach was not foregone conclusion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
