 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooney v. Compass Group Foodservice, No. 05-P-1657,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was vacated insofar as it denied wait staff's summary judgment motion as wait staff were entitled to service charge assessed by university for use of its facilities that was calculated as percentage of food and beverage service. Massachusetts Tips Act use of "or" indicated that non-employer that submitted bills or invoices could be liable.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Moretti, No. 06-P-1722,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a petition for probate of the decedent's will was affirmed because, pursuant to the burden-shifting rule for a fiduciary named in a will, the probate court properly found that the decedent's will was procured through the exercise of undue influence by a caregiver over the decedent.
|
|||||
| Public Works Supply Co. v. Town of Framingham, Opinion No.: 99187, Docket Number: 06-01943,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A supplier was not entitled to dismissal of a town's interference with a contractual relationship counterclaim against it, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H, because the supplier did not show the counterclaim was based only on the supplier's petitioning activities, as the supplier's complaint was plausibly based on losing a bid to a competitor.
|
|||||
| Robertson v. Morgan, Docket Number: 03-1890A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A voting trust certificates holder did not show the trust was void because (1) an alleged failure to establish rules regarding certificate transfers did not make the trust void, (2) certificates were transferable in the same manner as negotiable instruments, and (3) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, § 7.30 did not limit voting trusts to close corporations.
|
|||||
| Aimtek, Inc. v. Norton Co., No. 06-P-843,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge correctly ruled that six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2, applied to parties' bailment claim because essential nature of bailment claim stemmed from a consensual arrangement between the parties that two tanks would remain at the company's facility after the written rental agreement expired.
|
|||||
| DSCI Corp. v. Dep't of Telcoms. & Energy, SJC-09823,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy's decision was affirmed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25, § 5 because the Department applied the relevant law in ruling that an incumbent local exchange carrier met its burden of proof as to whether a resale restriction was reasonable and nondiscriminatory pursuant to 47 U.S.C.S. § 251(c)(4)(B).
|
|||||
| Knapp v. Neptune Towers Assocs., Opinion No.: 99183, Docket Number: 04-4211 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a partnership agreement gave the general partners full authority to retain a real estate broker who was the husband of one of them, and as hiring a broker was customary in real estate sales, the general partners had no fiduciary duty under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 109, § 24, to disclose to the limited partners that they had retained the husband.
|
|||||
| Melendez v. Torres, Opinion No.: 99273, Docket Number: 05-4548,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a city's building inspector required real estate sellers to remove a basement room after buyers paid a deposit towards the property's purchase, the sellers breached the parties' contract by materially changing the premises, and, as they could not return the premises to its prior condition, the buyers were entitled to a return of their deposit.
|
|||||
| Eight Arlington St., LLC v. Arlington Land Acquisition-99, LLC, Opinion No.: 99180, Docket Number: 06-1928 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A second action filed by plaintiff asserting derivative claims on behalf of a LLC against defendants was not barred by the doctrines of res judicata and claim splitting under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(9) since the first action brought by plaintiff asserted direct, personal damages against defendants and the second asserted derivative claims.
|
|||||
| Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., SJC-09780,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering defendants to produce certain documents, because under the common interest doctrine, the narrative portions of the disputed legal bills could have contained privileged material that was protected by a joint defense agreement between defendants.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
