 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Indus. Accidents, Docket Number: 05-3469-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 1, 2006, Decided , June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing officer properly found that for workers compensation purposes, insured's workers were independent contractors and not employees under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B, as substantial evidence showed they worked without supervision, brought their own equipment and materials to the job sites, and held themselves out as independent businessmen.
|
|||||
| Bylisnki v. Town of Douglas Bd. of Health, Docket Number: 05-2210-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Abutter's motion for judgment on pleadings was granted as variance under Massachusetts State Sanitary Code, Title V, 310 Mass. Code Regs. 15.000 et seq., was improper as existing privy hole been filled in, so privy's current actual flow was zero and proposed system would increase actual flow. Proposed septic system was new construction.
|
|||||
| Friends & Fishers of the Edgartown Great Pond, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., SJC-09570,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: With regard to the issuance of a groundwater discharge permit, the permit was upheld on appeal where a commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection applied the correct legal standards, all relevant ground and surface water quality standards were met, and no violation of the quality standards existed.
|
|||||
| Offley v. Acushnet Co., Docket Number: 2003-700,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BRISTOL, June 1, 2006, Decided , June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under continuing violation doctrine, jury could find that if not for alleged discriminatory conduct, job transfer would not have occurred as employee did not request transfer made after complaint to human resources about supervisor. Retaliation claim survived summary judgment as there was evidence employee was demoted after making complaint.
|
|||||
| Priester v. Town of Auburn, Docket Number: 02-2581-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town's summary judgment motion against a citizen was granted as to the citizen's false imprisonment and arrest, abuse of process, emotional distress, and harassment claims because the town could not be derivatively liable under those claims once summary judgment was granted to the officer that made the alleged false arrest of the citizen.
|
|||||
| Brooke v. Basile, Docket Number: BACV2006-265,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Businesswoman had no right to enjoin others' use of name "Gabriel" that she used in her business. Name had secondary meaning but was not strong trade name as she also gave it to her condominium complex and trust. Confusion did not result from defendants' use of name but from fact that her company and that of defendants competed for same customers.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. DePeiza, No. 06-P-356.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the police only stopped defendant because of the way he walked and there was no such showing of imminent danger, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant might be engaged in criminal activity; therefore, the police violated U.S. Const. amend. IV and Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 14 when they searched his pockets.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Hall, No. 05-P-631,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's statement about another person was admitted to explain the victim's fear of going to the police, to correct any mistaken conclusions about the witness's state of mind, and to rehabilitate the witness, defendant was properly convicted of rape despite the victim's seven-year delay in reporting the incident.
|
|||||
| Skinner v. Commerce Ins. Co., Docket Number: 03-362,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's refusal to settle officer's claim when he so demanded under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A was not unfair or deceptive act under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2(a), or Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3; insurer acted reasonably and in good faith. Insured's liability was not clear, and alleged injuries and damages seemed excessive and were not proven.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
