 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Nunez-Polcano v. Boch Toyota, Inc., Docket Number: 04-2019,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted as to an automobile dealership and a manager as to an estate's claims of negligent entrustment of an automobile, as the dealership and the manager did not know that a customer who rented a car would re-rent the vehicle to other parties who were involved in an accident which killed a decedent.
|
|||||
| St.-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. v. Hewes, Docket Number: 05-2030,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's motion to dismiss was allowed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3 as, even if there was breach of non-compete agreement, employee did not regularly transact business in Massachusetts. If longarm statute was satisfied, employee did not have minimum contacts required for due process.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Rivas, Docket Number: 2005-0353,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was denied as while detective's belief that vehicle bearing red rejection sticker could not be operated under any circumstances was incorrect, red rejection sticker on defendant's vehicle provided objectively reasonable basis for threshold inquiry, which led to arrest, examination of vehicle, and discovery of drugs.
|
|||||
| Brodie v. Jordan, No. 04-P-1572,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court judgment in favor of an executrix was upheld on appeal where the evidence showed that the executrix, who succeeded in her husband's ownership of stock in a closely held corporation, was frozen out by the two officers, who breached their fiduciary duties by so doing. The corporation was forced to buy the executrix's shares.
|
|||||
| Covucci v. Keane Consulting Group, Inc., Docket Number: 03-3584,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to dismiss a former vice president's claims of age discrimination and retaliation was granted based on spoliation of evidence, as the vice president falsely claimed that he no longer possessed a computer which contained a crucial piece of evidence and then intentionally deleted the evidence such that it could not be recovered.
|
|||||
| Duong v. George M. Rogers Ins. Agency, Inc., Docket Number: 2005-00352B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaint filed by insureds against an insurance agency and an insurance company was sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12; it was claimed that agency was an agent for the insureds and the company and had made misrepresentations on which insureds relied, and the agency's alleged actions could be attributed to company.
|
|||||
| Galvin v. Excel Switching Corp., Docket Number: 2004-2997-BLS 2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contract action, in view of its specificity and completeness, and taking into account an option agreement's explicit integration clause, the parties intended it to be the final, integrated expression of their agreement concerning stock options. The actual execution date was the operative date for purposes of the parol evidence rule.
|
|||||
| O'Rourke v. Hunter, SJC-09637,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a will contest action, a will proponent was not required to first exhaust the procedures set forth in Mass. Prob. & Fam. Ct., Prob. R. 16 before moving for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. Prob. & Fam. Ct., Prob. R. 27B.
|
|||||
| Smaland Beach Ass'n v. Genova, Docket Number: PLCV2005-00088,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT PLYMOUTH, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit involving a boundary dispute between a strip of land bordering a road, a pond, and two lots, summary judgment, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 was denied, since material issues of fact existed as to the ownership conveyed in the parties' respective chain of titles and whether defendants' encroachment was cured by adverse possession.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
