 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carr v. Entercom Boston, LLC, Opinion No.: 98945, Docket Number: 07-2935 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee, a self-proclaimed local television and radio broadcasting fixture, and his employer, a major media entity, set their litigation so publicly in motion, it ill befitted them to attempt to litigate behind closed doors; therefore, their Mass. Unif. Impoundment P.R. 2 motion was denied.
|
|||||
| Slade v. Ormsby, No. 05-P-1683,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order disqualifying clients' counsel was vacated as implicit conclusion was made that attorney's representation of clients was adverse to interests of co-owners, who he formerly represented. In order to find that two representations were substantially related, overlap and similarity between representations should have been considered.
|
|||||
| Ward v. Perna, No. 05-P-1320,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was modified as to value of cottage and was affirmed as tenants had made substantial improvements to cottage that caused it to be affixed to land. Tenants reasonably relied on owner's assurances that they would be able to buy land beneath cottage. Owner was liable for cost of cottage, but tenants were liable for rent due.
|
|||||
| Watts Water Techs., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Opinion No.: 98955, Docket Number: 05-2604-BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurers reserving rights as to underlying suits against an insured only had to defend when the insured was directly or indirectly named a defendant but had to pay all reasonable fees reasonably related to that defense even if it benefitted uninsured parties, whether done by local or national counsel, to be determined under the Linthicum standard.
|
|||||
| Dworman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Opinion No.: 99197, Docket Number: 02-1213B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied second insurance company's motion for reconsideration, as there was no question but that second insurance company was responsible for insured's entire underinsurance claim; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(5) dictated that result because the second insurance company's policy provided the higher coverage for the insured's claim.
|
|||||
| Mass. Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Premier Ins. Co., SJC-09793,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court in one case properly granted summary judgment to the insolvency fund and erred in granting it to the one underinsured motorist insurer in the second case, as the insolvency fund's obligation to compensate injured individuals whose insurance company became insolvent only arose after uninsured motorist coverage was exhausted.
|
|||||
| Town of Hudson v. Labor Rels. Comm'n, No. 06-P-1191,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State labor relations commission did not err in concluding that a town engaged in a prohibited practice pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E, § 10(a) by refusing to allow a union attorney to serve as a Weingarten representative at an investigatory interview of an employee because employee's right to union representation extended to union attorney.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
