 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| GE Capital Corp. v. MHPG, Inc., Docket Number: 03-0833B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a lessor failed to support claims against a lessee and other defendants upon the lessee's default, and no other theory of liability attached to any other party, summary judgment was entered against the lessor. As a result, two individuals were granted summary judgment on their abuse of process and deceptive business practice counterclaims.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Dep't of Corr., Docket Number: 03-4431,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts Department of Corrections' summary judgment motion was allowed as to inmates' Mass. Const. Decl. Rights art. XXVI claim since provision of bi-weekly religious services or pat-frisks by female security guards could not be deemed cruel or unusual under contemporary moral standards because there was no allegation of malice.
|
|||||
| Perini/Kiewit/Cashman v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination, Docket Number: 04-5322,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination erred in holding that a worker was the victim of gender-based harassment in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 151B, § 4(1). Language her supervisor used was not so explicitly sexual as to constitute gender harassment, and it seemed to be directed at her poor performance rather than her gender.
|
|||||
| Torrance Van & Storage Co. v. Lyman St. Dev. Realty Trust, Docket Number: 01-1221B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the case was inherently unsuitable for summary judgment relief, the expenses incurred by the storage company for pursuing it had to be for it to bear. Thus, the court deducted $ 17,837 from the fee submission.
|
|||||
| Wilson's Case, No. 05-P-1269,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts Industrial Accident Reviewing Board exclusion of claimant's settlement payments for loss of consortium suit in determining whether claimant was fully self-supporting for purposes of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 31 was reversed as such damages were not excludable income under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 38.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Hoyle, No. 05-P-456,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the evidence supporting a plea withdrawal motion failed to meet the applicable burden of proof, the pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently given, and given the passage of time, defendant was unable to show by the record that his pleas should be withdrawn because he did not sign a written jury waiver, withdrawal was reversed.
|
|||||
| In re Lupo, SJC-09686,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, July 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's filing of a suit against a person who filed a grievance against him was expressly prohibited by Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 4:01, § 9(1) and thus was prejudicial to the administration of justice, Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), and adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, Rule 8.4(h).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
