 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barboza v. McLeod, SJC-09596,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering a decedent's nephew to relinquish money from a California bank account to the decedent's estate, as estate administrators failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended to remove the nephew as joint holder of the bank account as required by Cal. Prob. Code § 5302(a) (Supp. 2006).
|
|||||
| Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., Docket Number: 04-2434-A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties agreed to specifically exclude payment of accrued, but unused, vacation time in their agreement to employees discharged for cause or in lieu of termination, pursuant to the plain language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148, the former employees were not entitled to accrued, but unused, vacation pay.
|
|||||
| Marketplace Ctr., Inc. v. Bress, Docket Number: 02-0153 BLS1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' legal malpractice action was time-barred by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 4 because they knew or should have known more than three years before it was filed, through their new law firm, that their former attorney's failure to answer requests under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 59, § 38D could lead to dismissal of their tax abatement appeals.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Chief Justice for Admin. & Mgmt. of the Trial Court, No. 05-P-1141,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's negligence claim against Chief Justice for Administration and Management in official capacity as public employer of probation officers was properly dismissed as claim was barred under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 10(j) since it was not foreseeable that probation officers' error would lead to tortious or criminal acts by police officers.
|
|||||
| C. Max, Inc. v. Cresta Constr., Inc.,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER, August 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a contractor did not show a change of circumstances since its original Mass. R.Civ.P. 59 motion for a new trial was denied, and because the contractor failed to serve the subcontractor with a copy of the motion within 10 days of the judgment, the motion was properly denied as being in violation of Mass. Super. Ct. R. 9A.
|
|||||
| Gainey v. Norton, Opinion No.: 96458, Docket Number: 05-605,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners' claims on behalf children and step-children were not barred by the homeowners' prior action against the same defendants arising from alleged mold contamination in their home because the children and step-children were not parties to the prior action, and had suffered separate and distinct injuries as a result of the mold infestation.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Rowe, Opinion No.: 96457, Docket Number: 06-0188,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' witness tampering, bribery, and perjury claims were dismissed because these counts were all alleged crimes, and plaintiffs' civil rights claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11H-I was dismissed because it was unclear as to how defendants interfered with plaintiffs' constitutional rights; malicious prosecution claims survived.
|
|||||
| Cedarmere Ventures, LLC v. Cohassett Sewer Comm'n, Docket Number: SUCV2003-05614,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, August 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported a sewer commission's denial of a sewer connection permit to a real estate developer when the connection would increase sewer flow beyond the system's capacity and a judgment for the town's failure to comply with the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act superseded Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 83, § 3.
|
|||||
| E.N. v. E.S., No. 05-P-270,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Massachusetts had child custody jurisdiction, despite a Puerto Rican habeas corpus petition, as Puerto Rico had no jurisdiction, as it was not the children's home state, under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738A, and such jurisdiction was proper.
|
|||||
| Hokanson v. DePalma, Opinion No.: 96456, Docket Number: 04-00292,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants, real estate broker, an individual, and a real estate agency, were entitled to summary judgment on potential property buyers' claims of misrepresentation and breach of third-party contract, as defendants were unaware that the sellers lacked authority to sell the land and had no independent duty to verify the sellers' claim of authority.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
