 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-P-1200,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an inmate's due process rights were not violated during a disciplinary action, and the sanctions, authorized by 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25 (1993), were not an atypical and significant hardship, because the sanctions were increased based on duplicative charges, the inmate was entitled to certiorari to remedy the error.
|
|||||
| Allmerica Fin. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, SJC-09834,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to underwriters as to a corporation's declaratory judgment action, because while the underwriters, as an excess insurer, were not bound by settlement decisions made by the corporation's primary insurer, issues of fact existed as to whether policy exclusions applied.
|
|||||
| CTI Group/Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Wave Graphics, Inc., Opinion No.: 99272, Docket Number: 06-1920,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for partial summary judgment was granted as guarantor was personally liable on personal guaranty after lessee defaulted since any actions by lessor in failing to act in commercially reasonable manner in disposing of equipment that might have contributed to deficiency amount occurred after lessee's default.
|
|||||
| Pratt v. Martineau, No. 06-P-283,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment on negligence count was reversed as it was not unforeseeable that accidental shooting would occur since father provided underaged son with gun, allowed him to keep it in apartment father owned next door, knew gun was kept unlocked in bureau drawer, and knew that son's roommate had smoked marijuana in basement.
|
|||||
| Visnick v. Marriot Int'l, Inc., Docket Number: 02-0681-C,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former supervisee claiming Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(4) retaliation, was not entitled to summary judgment against a former supervisor because she showed no disadvantage as to employment terms, nor was she entitled to summary judgment as to the supervisor's defamation and related claims against her as she could not claim an absolute privilege.
|
|||||
| Quinn v. Mar-Lees Seafood, LLC, No. 06-P-588,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs request for specific performance of defendant's obligation to pay him royalties was properly denied, as the jury verdict was equivalent to declaration that he was due royalties for as long as defendant realized a profit on sales to a third party; he thus had an adequate remedy at law if defendant committed a breach in the future.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. D'Amelia, Docket Number: 05-CV-3448-F,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to continue trial because plaintiff's trial counsel was unable to appear due to pre-planned family vacation was denied. Motion was received two days before trial despite counsel having notice of trial for six weeks, counsel was not on vacation as he had said, and the criminal hearing that conflicted with the trial date could be rescheduled.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
