 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| MRI Assocs. v. Dep't of Pub. Health, No. 06-P-1339.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly entered judgment for the Department of Public Health in an action by corporations challenging the denial of a request to transfer clinic operations under 105 Mass. Code Regs. § 100.720(I)(2) (2001), as the record supported the finding that a transfer would provide no substantial increase in service to any unserved population.
|
|||||
| Blue View Constr., Inc. v. Town of Franklin, No. 06-P-876,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a 1987 subdivision plan involving a certain parcel of land could never be implemented, and never came to fruition, the zoning board of appeal was not precluded from approving alternative development plans, such did not violate a developer's rights or interests, and that developer failed to show entitlement to an easement by estoppel.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, No. 06-P-1807,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a stop of defendant's motor vehicle; caller who reported that defendant had struck the caller's vehicle with defendant's vehicle was not an anonymous informant because the caller sufficiently identified himself such that he was rendered identifiable.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Zimmermann, No. 06-P-1240,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as motion to suppress was properly denied as accident reconstruction expert had probable cause to believe that defendant violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §§ 17 and 24 and to obtain warrant for event data recorder based on expert's observations as to road conditions, rotation and sliding of vehicle, and death of passenger.
|
|||||
| Ward v. Ward, No. 06-P-1254.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed as a father could not rescind a deed he directed his attorney to draft based solely on the father's unilateral mistake of law as to its legal effect and consequence since the son did not exercise undue influence in the procurement of the deed, and did not breach any fiduciary duty owed the father.
|
|||||
| Bellanti v. Boston Pub. Health Comm'n, No. 06-P-1288,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, the trial court erred in denying the Boston Public Health Commission's motion for summary judgment because an administratrix failed to make presentment upon the proper executive officer, as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 4, and the actual notice exception did not apply.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Planning Bd., No. 06-P-1019,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town planning board was properly granted summary judgment against a property owner's claims for declaratory and equitable relief because the owner's challenge of the conditions imposed under an approval not required (ANR) plan pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81P was of necessity a challenge of the ANR endorsement itself and untimely brought.
|
|||||
| Rush v. Norfolk Elec. Co., No. 06-P-1105,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General contractor was not entitled to indemnification by plumber since plumber's obligation was to indemnify to damages incurred to extent caused in whole or in part by plumber or person or entity for which plumber was responsible, and damages incurred due to negligence of injured party's employer were discounted by comparative negligence statute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
