 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Alvarez, No. 05-P-1374,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying defendant's motion to reinstate his direct appeal, which had been dismissed on defendant's motion, was vacated and remanded; because the record contained objective evidence of irregularities supporting the conclusion that defendant effectively was deprived of the right to counsel on appeal, further inquiry was required.
|
|||||
| Facella v. City of Newton, No. 06-P-1295,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 39, a civil service disability retiree, separated for more than five years, could be conditionally reinstated subject to retraining, but if the retraining was not successfully completed, job termination was not improper and a municipality was not required to navigate the civil service laws to dismiss the retiree.
|
|||||
| Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Hoon Cos., Opinion No.: 98642, Docket Number: 07-1056,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a state court action was the only one that would adequately protect the rights of all the parties, in contrast to a federal court action that would primarily serve the interests of the surety only, the surety's motion to dismiss or for a stay of proceedings of the authority's breach of a contract action was denied.
|
|||||
| Powell v. Cambridge Exec. Enters., Opinion No.: 98736, Docket Number: 06-01312,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the plaintiffs could not justify their opposition, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was continued until the parties completed discovery; because the defendants were prejudiced by the circumstances of the litigation, they were entitled to fees and costs, with the amounts to be determined after submission of affidavits.
|
|||||
| Town of Wrentham v. Hous. Appeals Comm., No. 06-P-587,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town's action seeking judicial review of a housing appeals committee order, which directed the town to consider the merits of a comprehensive permit application filed by a developer, was properly dismissed because there was no final decision issued that was subject to judicial review.
|
|||||
| Arcand v. Bd. of Registration in Nursing, Opinion No.: 98644, Docket Number: 2006-3530,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no good cause shown by the Board of Registration in Nursing for the seven-year delay in processing the single complaint against a nurse, and the nurse made an honest mistake in taking a small amount of morphine sulphate home with her, the Board's reprimand on her license was illegal.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Cataldo, No. 05-P-1158,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence seized after a warrantless entry into defendant's dwelling was properly suppressed because officers lacked a reasonable basis to believe those items seized which had any relation to the crime for which defendant was a suspect would be destroyed or that safety was a concern, and there was not a sufficient basis for a later-obtained warrant.
|
|||||
| Kramer v. Somerville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Opinion No.: 98735, Docket Number: 03-2174,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a neighbor lacked evidence to prove his claims of conspiracy and misrepresentation against the defendants, which entitled them to summary judgment, the negligence claims against a permittee survived, as the neighbor might not have been properly notified of the permittee's special permit application.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
