 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Commer. Fin. Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., No. 05-P-952,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurance policy required the insured to take steps to protect its property from further damage after a loss, and because the insured's expense was clearly incurred to protect the property from further damage, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the insured.
|
|||||
| Cent. Steel Supply Co. v. Planning Bd., SJC-09545,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No new or renewed eligibility findings under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, § 48 were required for a change in an urban renewal plan that removed light industrial uses from the covered area and made plaintiffs' property subject to eminent domain because such findings were not required for a major plan change under 760 Code Mass. Regs. 12.03(2).
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Pasteur, No. 04-P-850,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder as a joint venturer was affirmed as jury instructions accurately described malice, properly distinguished malice required for first- and second-degree murder, and correctly advised that defendant had to share malice required of principal in order to be found guilty as a joint venturer.
|
|||||
| Targus Group Int'l, Inc. v. Sherman, Docket Number: 04-4907 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of purchasers for breach of an agreement in principle and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the agreement because the agreement sufficiently stated key terms that the parties had agreed to and the purchaser was entitled to enforce it although no final agreement could be reached.
|
|||||
| Cordaville Assocs., LLC v. Architectural Access Bd., Docket Number: 05-0266-DC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Architectural Access Board determined that curb cuts would substantially benefit disabled persons, the owner failed to show that the denial of a variance under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22, § 13A was arbitrary or capricious; thus, the owner was not entitled to a judgment on the pleadings under Mass. R.Civ.P. 12(c).
|
|||||
| Gen. Convention of the New Jerusalem in the U.S.A., Inc. v. MacKenzie, No. 05-P-521,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claim that individual members of a local church improperly caused the local church to disaffiliate from the general convention presented an issue that was not barred from consideration by the First Amendment; dismissal pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was reversed. There was some ambiguity in the dissolution provision of the church by-laws.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. Clark, No. 05-P-1376,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment entered in favor of the buyers for breach of contract and specific performance was affirmed because there was ample evidence to show that the buyers were willing to purchase as agreed. Buyers were not entitled to recover consequential damages that were too speculative or attorney's fees on appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
