 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adoption of Nate, No. 06-P-1912,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 26, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 210, § 3, the juvenile court erred by reinstating her rights based on the Department of Social Services' lack of progress in identifying a permanent placement for the child because this was not the proper procedure.
|
|||||
| Allen v. Commonwealth, SJC-09825,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the revocation of his bail under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3 on a first degree murder trial because the appeal was moot. Defendant was already serving an unrelated sentence and could not be released, defendant was acquitted of murder, and the issue was not capable of repetition and yet evading review.
|
|||||
| Kernan v. Morse, No. 06-P-817,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court, in dismissing a former husbands complaint to reduce alimony, erred in considering only his ability to pay alimony from his assets, without considering changed circumstances affecting former wife's need for support and without balancing equities (including the husband's loss of his job and the wife's substantially increased income).
|
|||||
| Matthews v. Comm'r of Corr., SJC-09870,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While not expressing an opinion on how the Appeals Court should ultimately resolve an inmate's requests for leave under Mass. RAP 12, 20 to file handwritten briefs, the state supreme court provided criteria for the Appeals Court to consider in determining whether to grant the motion or not.
|
|||||
| Oliveira v. Cappello Trucking, Inc., Opinion No.: 98831, Docket Number: 05-0606A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the signing of the agreement between a corporation and a crane company which it hired subsequent to the date of an accident, and the agreement did not fail for lack of consideration, summary judgment was denied as to the crane company's claim for indemnification based on the contract.
|
|||||
| Roberge v. Burkinshaw, Opinion No.: 98833, Docket Number: 2007-0483,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an agreement between an attorney and a debt collector had fee-splitting characteristics that raised serious questions about its lawfulness under Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3.07, § 5.4(a), and because the debt collector failed to show that he faced a substantial risk of irreparable harm, he was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Shining Rock Golf Cmty., LLC, Docket Number: 2006-1510-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court declined to pierce the corporate veil as to the manager of an LLC and the sole shareholder of a corporation. Plaintiff's allegations that they had failed to repair a number of warranty and "punch list" items did not justify piercing the corporate veil, and plaintiff had known that he was dealing with a corporation and an LLC.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
