 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bateman v. Republic Fin. Corp., Docket Number: 06-1956 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11 claim was grounded upon the same allegations as tort and contract claims, all of which were time-barred, it was time-barred also. A recoupment claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 3-105 failed when plaintiff proffered nothing to describe what claims he might have that gave him any recoupment rights.
|
|||||
| Bragel v. General Steel Corp., Docket Number: 2005-2820,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contract provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Denver, Colorado, was enforceable because, inter alia, contract's limitation of damages provision was not unconscionable, as it allowed arbitrator who found deceptive trade practices to award treble damages under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113, Colorado's counterpart to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Barreiro, No. 05-P-123,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to establish that he actually faced deportation as a result of his conviction for receiving stolen property, any prejudice he claimed as a result of the trial court's inadequate immigration warnings was merely speculative and insufficient to support the withdrawal of his plea under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 29D.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Chhim, SJC-09592,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion for required finding of not guilty pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2) because a reasonable person would have recognized from the number of attackers and the nature of the attack (a severe beating with multiple stabbings) that there was a plain and strong likelihood that the victim would be killed.
|
|||||
| Pettengill v. Seymour, Docket Number: 03-0011,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a property seller only represented facts obtained from an engineering report, which he reasonably believed to be accurate, the parties had no reason to doubt the report on its face, and there was no agency relationship, the statements in the report could not be imputed to the seller for purposes of negligent misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Ten Residents of Boston v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., Docket Number: 05-0109 BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Final environmental impact statement for a project that included a research laboratory was inadequate under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. It failed to analyze any "worst case" scenario involving the release of a dangerous pathogen and whether such a scenario would be less catastrophic if the lab were in a less densely populated area.
|
|||||
| Bray v. Cmty. Newspaper Co., No. 05-P-854,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment entered in favor of the employer was reversed because the former employee had provided evidence of specific events that supported a prima facie case of age discrimination and a discriminatory animus on the part of the employer, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(1B). Claims against individuals were also actionable.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Econ. Research Assocs. v. Evans, Docket Number: 04-2618 BLS2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As former employee took reasonable steps to protect e-mail communications with his attorney, made through his private Internet account, and had no reason to know they could still be read by examining his laptop's hard disk, he did not waive his attorney-client privilege. Therefore, employer on whose laptop e-mails were sent could not review them.
|
|||||
| O'Brien v. Pearson, No. 05-P-413,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Majority stockholders' decision to sell promissory note and mortgage for defensible price was not breach of fiduciary duty to minority stockholder because sale took place when there was no longer realistic opportunity to acquire subdivision, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156B, § 75 did not automatically equate with breach of fiduciary duty.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
