 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Petersen, No. 05-P-830,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that car's engine was warm when police arrived, defendant had keys to the car in his possession, defendant has been drinking, defendant agreed to and complied with field sobriety tests, and there was no evidence that someone else was operating the car was sufficient for the jury to concluded that defendant operated motor vehicle in question.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Bd. of Bar Overseers, Docket Number: 05-1907,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, August 4, 2006, Decided , August 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney alleged intentional torts against the Massachusetts Bar Counsel and Assistant Bar Counsel in relation to disciplinary complaints filed against attorney, they were immune under Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 4:01, § 9(3). Complaint did not allege that Bar Counsel or Assistant Bar Counsel acted outside scope of their official duties.
|
|||||
| Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 51-67 Stuart St. Realty Trust, 05-P-1210,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 4, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the language of a policy exclusion was clear and its meaning was plain, and the insured's argument based on the placement of a comma, a matter of punctuation, did not require a different interpretation of the provision, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the insurer.
|
|||||
| Town of Stoneham v. Commonwealth, Docket Numbers: 2005-02942; 2005-02943,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, August 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayers lacked standing to challenge Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation's acquisition of property, which was licensed to restaurant, as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 29, § 63 was not meant to apply retroactively to money already expended or to obligations already incurred; property was bought before suit was filed.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Tofanelli, No. 05-P-66,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a required finding of not guilty on a conviction of distributing a counterfeit substance in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32G because the Commonwealth established that defendant was present during the sale in question, was an active participant in the transaction, and possessed the requisite knowledge.
|
|||||
| Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Planning Bd., No. 05-P-1230,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal to a zoning board pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 8 had, as a jurisdictional prerequisite, action by an administrative officer. Because the corporation's appeal to the zoning board bypassed building inspector action, the zoning board had no jurisdiction to render the decision which was the subject of the corporation's zoning appeal.
|
|||||
| Erickson v. Exec. Office of Envtl. Affairs, Docket Number: 06-1409,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a cat owner's requests for documents under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, § 10 and 950 Mass. Code Regs. 32.01, et seq., were overly broad, unlimited in time, and appeared to be a continuation of her harassment of governmental officials and others with whom she had a dispute, the request was properly denied under 950 Mass. Code Regs. 32.08(2).
|
|||||
| Wolf v. Town of Mansfield, No. 04-P-1752,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving the amendment of a town's zoning by-law pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 5, summary judgment for the town was proper because the town meeting minutes contained nothing indicating confusion where no voters protested or expressed concern or confusion either before or after the overwhelming vote in support of the proposal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
