 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bleich v. Maimonides Sch., SJC-09520,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a former employer, a religious school, was largely self-governing and was not "controlled" by a hierarchical religion, it was exempt from unemployment tax under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151A. § 6(r), as it was "operated primarily for religious purposes" and "principally supported" by synagogues and other religious organizations.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Baran, Docket Number: 18042-51,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BERKSHIRE, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) was allowed, as several of counsel's errors supported the conclusion that a new trial was necessary and that counsel was ineffective. An expert would have been of assistance to defendant to explain to the jury why techniques used to question child complainants were harmful.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Ramos, No. 04-P-692,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defense counsel did not obtain trial court's ruling on admissibility of defendant's prior knife attack until after counsel promised jury in a murder trial to call psychologist who then did not testify, no ineffective assistance was found; counsel may have had competent reason for decision. Issue was better raised in a motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| Hepburn v. Barr & Barr, Docket Number: 05-0039E,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court-ordered psychiatric examination of a plaintiff in an adversarial case was ordered to be videotaped, despite the psychiatrist's contention that the videotaping would prevent his examination, because plaintiff would actually be more relaxed knowing that a record was being made, and balancing the interests weighed in favor of videotaping.
|
|||||
| Ryan v. Ryan, SJC-09653,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Family's irrevocable trust was reformed, based on the assent of all the beneficiaries, including those adversely affected, because scrivener's errors existed that were contrary to the settlors' intent; the settlors did not intend that only their children should be lifetime beneficiaries of the trust, but that their grandchildren should be as well.
|
|||||
| Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, SJC-09635,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Abutting landowners did not have standing under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40B, § 21 to challenge the issuance of a comprehensive permit for affordable housing. A claim of diminution of property values was not a basis for standing under the act, and the developer had rebutted the presumption that the landowners as abutters were "aggrieved persons."
|
|||||
| Tatro v. Taylor, Docket Number: 05-00572-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on doctrine of res judicata was denied despite fact that claims were same as those made against defendants by driver's employer in prior action in which there was a final judgment and that privity could be found, as everyone should be entitled to his or her own day in court.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Commonwealth, SJC-09443,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A single justice of the state's highest court properly denied defendant's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3 due to double jeopardy as the evidence was sufficient to present to the jury both principal and joint venturer liability theories for murder and armed home invasion.
|
|||||
| Zampier v. Hubbard, Docket Number: 04-5172-E,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an alleged child sexual abuse victim's complaint was filed more than three years after his knowledge of the nature of the alleged injury and remedies available to him, and because the alleged victim's allegation that his memory was repressed was a bare assertion and conclusion, the complaint was untimely under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 4C.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
