 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, SJC-09521,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 3, minority and gender-based promotions made by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) were upheld on appeal as a valid exercise of the MBTA's rule making authority to remedy past racial and gender-based discrimination.
|
|||||
| Morris v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 04-P-1182,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed claims against doctors employed by an insurance company arising from a denial of benefits under a disability policy for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the doctors had not made sufficient minimum contacts with Massachusetts to confer jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3.
|
|||||
| Richards v. Arteva Specialties S.A.R.L., No. 05-P-471,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing a purchaser's class action suit seeking damages allegedly arising from the actions of manufacturers in fixing prices for polyester staple, as the purchaser's allegation that she was injured by the higher costs for consumer products containing the material satisfied the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9.
|
|||||
| Carey's Case, No. 05-P-1183,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed as an employer committed serious and willful misconduct by allowing an employee, the claimants' minor son, to drive a golf cart in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 62. Thus, the claimants were entitled to double compensation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 28.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Southwick, No. 05-P-1146,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court would not invalidate bequest to attorney because Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(c), which barred attorney from drafting a will leaving him bequest for a testator who was unrelated to him, was not in effect when will was drafted, and probate judge could not raise issue sua sponte under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, § 13.
|
|||||
| Senior Hous. Props. Trust v. HealthSouth Corp., SJC-09594,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had waived its right to jury trial by failing to comply with provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 185, § 15, the land court could not invoke the provisions of Mass. R. Civ. P. 39(b) to revive defendant's right to a trial by jury in the superior court. As Rule 39(b) conflicted with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 185, § 15, the latter controlled.
|
|||||
| Town of Westminster v. Enright, Docket Numbers: 2003-0995; 2002-1785,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decisions of a zoning board of appeals were affirmed, and a property owner was ordered to obey state and local laws regarding sanitation, solid waste management, zoning regulations, and wetlands protection on his land because the owner violated the conditions imposed by the board on a special permit and did not comply with laws and regulations.
|
|||||
| Carey's Case, No. 05-P-1183,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a minor employee was fatally injured in 2000 while operating a golf cart, his parents were entitled to double compensation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 28 because the employer had violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 62(10). Before its 2002 amendment, § 62(10) prohibited minors from operating golf carts.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
