 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Finlan v. Verizon New Eng., Inc., Docket Number: 02-4616G,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, July 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer did not violate an employee's rights under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(16) in failing to accommodate his urological and obsessive compulsive disorders. Since learning of the employee's handicap, the employer had done exactly what the employee originally wished: assigning him the majority of the time within 30 miles of his home.
|
|||||
| Howard v. Anastasio, Docket Number: 03-606,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner's use of a renovated garage as a second dwelling violated a town's zoning by-laws and was not permitted by a building permit, there was no statute of limitation under Mass Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 7 that would protect the owner from the town's enforcement action seeking prohibition of the use of an unlawful structure.
|
|||||
| Saberi v. Wells, Docket Number: 2005-00584,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, July 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ZBZ did not abuse its discretion when it denied a homeowner's request for a special permit to build a deck and gazebo at his home. Based on the evidence presented, including a viewing of the property by the court, the ZBA's determination that the structures would impair views and vistas was not arbitrary or capricious.
|
|||||
| Burkhardt v. Barnstable Conservation Comm'n, Opinion No.: 96447, Docket Number: 05-323,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied plaintiff judgment on pleadings on her petition challenging decision to allow defendants to add on to their home because plaintiff lacked standing to bring her claims, since she asserted no injury to herself and did not show that Barnstable Conservation Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing order of conditions.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Jozus, No. 05-P-734,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given a patent ambiguity in an interlocutory Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 241, § 10 partition decree, a commissioner was obligated to seek further instruction or modification of the order; by vacating the decree, the judge essentially answered the commissioner's petition by determining that sale at the highest price was the proper result.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Winter Place LLC, SJC-09544,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A prohibited an employer from retaliating against its servers for making internal allegations of wage violations, even if they never brought their allegations to the attention of the Attorney General, the manager was not protected when he merely conveyed the servers' complaints to the employer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
