 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Banks, Docket Number: 05-580,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was denied as there was sufficient nexus between defendant's drug selling and home to establish probable cause to search home since defendant told confidential informant (CI) that he would have to go home for cocaine before delivering drugs. Affiant knew CI and that CI had provided reliable information before.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Clemmey, SJC-09463,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing defendants' indictments for violating the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 131, § 40, as the Commonwealth's failure to inform the grand jury that an agricultural exemption existed did not impair the integrity of the grand jury process, as the evidence indicated that the exemption did not apply.
|
|||||
| Jupin v. Kask, SJC-09538,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A homeowner who allowed a guest to keep guns at her home and gave his son, who had a criminal history and mental difficulties, unsupervised access to the home had a duty to ensure that the guns were safely stored. She was therefore not entitled to summary judgment in a negligence action when the son stole one of the guns and shot a police officer.
|
|||||
| Sarkis v. Grey2K, Docket Number: 00-4891-E,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nearly four years passed after a greyhound park and its owner initially appealed the dismissal of their defamation case before they did anything to advance it, the appeal was properly dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 10(c), Mass. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(2) for their abject failed to press their appeal diligently.
|
|||||
| Weston Forest & Trail Ass'n v. Fishman, No. 05-P-1076,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither laches nor estoppel precluded a not-for-profit corporation from filing an action under the Massachusetts Conservation Restriction Act to direct an owner to remove a barn she had constructed in violation of a restriction on her land because although the corporation was a private entity, it was acting to enforce public rights.
|
|||||
| New London County Ins. Co. v. Broan-NuTone, LLC, Docket Number: BACV20020130,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The manufacturer of a fan unit that allegedly caused a condominium fire was not entitled to summary judgment on a breach of warranty claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-318 because, although it was prejudiced by a delay in notifying it of the claim because it could not investigate the fire scene, a 25-day delay was not clearly unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Pavone v. City of Worcester, Docket Number: 01-1607A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A police officer candidate did not form a valid contract with the city because to do so would have required compliance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, §§ 6 and 27 as well as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 43, § 104 and Worcester, Mass., City Charter art. 3, § 3-3(a), which stated the city manager was the appointing authority for all city departments and offices.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
