|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Massachusetts - June 25 - June 26, 2007
|
| |
Bourque v. Town & Country Realty, LLC, Opinion No.: 98734, Docket Number: 05-00966,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a former owner did not owe a tenant the requisite duty in order to establish a claim of negligence, and because the implied warranty of habitability did not extend to the former owner, the former owner was entitled to summary judgment in the tenant's personal injury action.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Commonwealth v. Goewey, No. 06-P-1204,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: State trooper did not violate Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. 14, when trooper ordered defendant out of the car and pat frisked defendant because trooper had reasonable belief his safety or public's safety was in danger based on defendant's nervousness, stammered responses, and actions in reaching down under seat, around his body, or into a coat.
|
|
| |
Cutler v. Aristo-Craft of Am., Inc., Opinion No.: 98739, Docket Number: 04-4578,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the employee, including his "outbursts" and insubordination in refusing to broaden his marketing efforts, and the employee was unable to show his termination was based on age discrimination, summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|