 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bortone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Docket Number: 04-04101,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, July 19, 2006, Decided , July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a worker's breach of contract action was still fundamentally encompassed within the overarching workers' compensation framework, he had to assert his right to workers' compensation benefits in the Department of Industrial Accidents. Thus, the court was without subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Cheromcka, No. 04-P-1065,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bus drivers' testimony they ran errands for defendant, for which hours were added to time sheets, provided sufficient evidence to support larceny by false pretenses conviction. Approval of credit card bills submitted for payment was implied misrepresentation items bought were intended for school use and supported larceny by pretenses conviction.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Connors, SJC-09610,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not refuse interviews with court-appointed experts mandated in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, § 13(a), and introduce own expert testimony based on personal interviews. Admission of mittimus, which contained brief reference to other sexual crime, did not prejudice defendant when evidence showed commission of sexual offenses began at 16.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Martin, SJC-09585,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress identification was properly denied where motion judge carefully considered risk of suggestion due to presence of victim's father and found it did not render the identification suggestive. Motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds was properly denied where defendant was responsible for majority of period of pretrial detention.
|
|||||
| Duddy v. Mankewich, No. 05-P-1011,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a planning board's votes in favor of a property owner's plan constituted a majority of the quorum, they represented a minority of the five-member panel. Because Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81P required a majority of the board to support the plan, the approval was reversed.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez v. Katz, Docket Number: 2005-00217,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Promotion of Anatomical Science Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 113, §§ 8-14, did not apply, the "good faith" immunity provision could not successfully be asserted by medical professionals where the wife of a deceased patient sued for negligence based on her husband receiving a diseased liver; thus, the motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|||||
| Mass. Elec. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Docket Number: 99-00467-B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A term sheet describing an initial settlement between electric companies and insurance underwriters in an insurance-coverage dispute was enforceable because it represented an agreement on all material terms, but the scope of the companies' obligation to indemnify the underwriters under the agreement had to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
|
|||||
| Norfolk County Ret. Sys. v. Dir. of the DOL & Workforce Dev., No. 05-P-146,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a review examiner did not make all the requisite findings and did not sufficiently explain the reasons or the evidence underlying the determination that an unemployed worker was entitled to benefits because her departure from work was rendered involuntary under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151A, § 25(e)(1), the matter had to be remanded.
|
|||||
| Schonhorn v. Katz, Docket Number: 5-2056,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT NORFOLK, July 19, 2006, Decided , July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment to condominium association board; condominium unit owners lawsuit regarding reimbursement for 2004 common area assessment was barred because that payment was made without protest and reimbursement for 2005 assessment was barred because that assessment was neither timely paid nor paid under protest.
|
|||||
| Sigel v. Krock, Docket Number: 95-1935,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 19, 2006, Decided , July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs in a declaratory judgment action, and defendant trustees were enjoined from taking further actions on behalf of a realty trust, because a lease for the trust property entered into by the defendant trustees was unreasonable and excessive in amount and duration.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
