 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carrel v. Nat'l Cord & Braid Corp., SJC-09541,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of warranty action against a manufacturer for a camper's injuries caused by recoiling bungee cord, a sophisticated user jury instruction was proper because there was evidence that the expertise of the youth organization that operated the camp as to the tendency of knots in such cord to come untied far exceeded that of the manufacturer.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Bankert, No. 05-P-1082,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because none of the questions presented by a district court was an undecided question of substantial significance or a question of importance to the general public, and because the questions were clearly factual, constitutional, unaddressed, or premature, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 34, the report presenting the questions was discharged.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. LaForte, Docket Number: 06-1063,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had been convicted of one or more sexual offenses and was suffering from a mental abnormality that made him likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined to a secure facility, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, § 13, defendant was committed to a treatment center for examination and diagnosis by two qualified examiners.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Barnsider Mgmt. Corp., Docket Number: 04-1360,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT ESSEX, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an issue of fact existed as to whether or not a tip-sharing arrangement was a condition of employment in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 152A, and because the owner could not claim tip credit under the minimum wage law in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§ 1, 7, summary judgment was precluded on claims made prior to September 8, 2004.
|
|||||
| Normandy v. Royal Indus., Opinion No.: 96459, Docket Number: 04-00652,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint in a product liability action was granted because, besides showing that the injury occurred in the forum state, the corporation had no contacts with the forum state; the corporation merely sold component parts to a manufacturer who sold the product at issue in the forum state.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Town of Millbury, Docket Number: 2000-00786,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted a town for the condominium association's claims of negligence under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 1 et seq., because the town did not have supervision or control over the contractor that it hired to do the sewer work. Association did not have a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 83, § 1.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Zine, Opinion No.: 96453, Docket Number: 05-00634,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an accessory apartment was an illegal use under Falmouth, Mass., Code § 240-3A, the issuance of a special permit, explicitly authorizing that illegal use, was not permissible. Moreover, given that the apartment was illegal, the fact that it was preexisting was irrelevant to any analysis.
|
|||||
| Torrance Van & Storage Co. v. Lyman St. Dev. Realty Trust, Docket Number: 01-1221B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a person committed a fraud on a court by knowingly facilitating the conveyance of real estate that was the subject of a court order of attachment, he was added as an interested party; post-trial discovery, a injunction, and an attachment were necessary to protect the security of the judgment and the integrity of the court's orders.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
