|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Massachusetts - September 4 - September 10, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Commonwealth v. White, No. 06-P-1318,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of perjury, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 1, because a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that his false statement at his rape trial, attempting to show his victim falsely accused him to avoid repaying a loan, was material because her credibility was of key importance, due to a lack of physical evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Spirito v. Hyster New Eng., Inc., No. 06-P-816,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, September 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a contribution suit, summary judgment was properly denied to the joint tortfeasors because, within one year of the settlement, the common liability was discharged by an employer's payment of $ 950,000 to plaintiff, who was assigned the employer's contribution rights, therefore, the action was not barred by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231B, § 3(d)(2).
|
|
| |
Borden v. Humm, No. 06-P-770,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, September 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the property owners because, at the father's death, the property owners held a lot in their own right, not as resulting trustees, and had no duty to convey the lot to the father's estate. The father had the power to terminate a "resulting trust," which he did after the mother's death.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|