 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Abramms, No. 04-P-1211,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of failure to obey an order to disperse from an unlawful assembly, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 2, was affirmed, as the statute was not unconstitutional on its face, and because no transcript of the trial was provided, the appellate court could not determine the basis of defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
| Scott-Jones v. Lu, SJC-09710,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of civil contempt is a final appealable order, and a superior court's refusal to compel arbitration of a condominium dispute did not deprive unit owners of an appeal, and therefore they had failed to meet their burden under Mass. App. Ct. R. Regs. App. P. 2:21 for appellate review under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3.
|
|||||
| Sliech-Brodeur v. Commonwealth, SJC-09674,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a petitioner had sought review of discovery orders in a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3 petition, and a single justice had denied her petition and she had subsequently been convicted, because she had filed a notice of appeal and there was no apparent reason why she could not pursue a direct appeal, dismissal was required.
|
|||||
| Teamsters Joint Council No. 10 v. Dir. of the Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., SJC-09505,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in declaring that an agency improperly found that road time for truck drivers hauling bituminous concrete to and from highway construction sites was not covered by prevailing wage law, as the agency properly interpreted the language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 27, as limiting coverage to time the drivers spent on the sites.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
