 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnstable County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dezotell, Docket Number: 2005-00361,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's motion to dissolve an attachment was allowed as an insurer offered no information from which a court could find that the insured engaged in any intentional conduct which caused the loss of her home. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99, the insurer failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable likelihood of its recovering judgment.
|
|||||
| Branagan v. Swartz, Docket Number: 04-470,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A board of zoning appeals erred by denying an owner's request to build an addition to a dwelling. Board did not make any findings of impact as required by Falmouth, Mass., By-laws §§ 240-3 or 240-216, but merely concluded, without any supporting evidence, that enlarging the structure would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Abreu, No. 05-P-816,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the Commonwealth's argument that Mass. R. App. P. 14(b) did not apply to defendant's appeal from the order of the trial court because the notice of appeal was filed more than one year after the verdict would effectively prohibit a court from permitting late notices of appeal from collateral challenges, the argument was without merit.
|
|||||
| DaSilveira Builders, Inc. v. Prioly, Docket Number: 05-01860D,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the homeowners filed their cross claim against their insurer at a time when the insurer was a co-party in the action, the dismissal of the insurer from the original action did not automatically dismiss it from any cross claims filed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 13(g).
|
|||||
| Islamic Soc'y of Boston v. Boston Herald, Inc., Docket Number: 05-4637,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 20, 2006, Decided , July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a group of non-media defendants failed to show that their public attack against an Islamic organization, resulting in a defamation and civil rights action being filed against them, amounted to "petitioning activity" under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H, their special motion to dismiss said action was denied.
|
|||||
| McDonough v. McDonough, Docket Number: 03-00061,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an ex-wife's complaints to the police department and a fire marshal, concerning her belief that her ex-husband had burned their marital home, entitled her, in the absence of evidence of malice or recklessness, to a qualified privilege and immunity, the wife was entitled to summary judgment on the ex-husband's slander action.
|
|||||
| Aaron v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., No. 05-P-1115,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a landowner claimed adverse possession of an easement over a redevelopment authority's land, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 31 barred his claim because any land the Commonwealth, or a political subdivision, held for urban renewal purposes was held for "a public purpose" under the statute, which gave the Commonwealth superior land recovery rights.
|
|||||
| Humphrey v. Byron, SJC-09449,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A business, not its landlord, was liable for businessman's injuries; lease made business liable to maintain premises, and record belied its claim that a small business had to be treated as residential tenant. Record and substantial differences in residential and commercial settings did not support extending Young v. Garwacki to commercial setting.
|
|||||
| Xarras v. McLaughlin, No. 05-P-955,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nullity doctrine was inapplicable in case filed against a deceased defendant because other viable defendants were also in the case. Thus, the original complaint remained valid, the properly allowed amended complaint naming estate administrator related back to the initial filing, and thus, the action was timely under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 197, § 9.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
