 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commerce Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Ins., SJC-09622,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113H did not prohibit the Commissioner of Insurance from promulgating an assigned risk plan, nor did it require the use of a reinsurance facility. Rule providing that a "clean in three" driver shall not be placed in the assigned risk pool caused gap, however, as plan did not mandate voluntary coverage for such persons.
|
|||||
| Blake v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., Civil No. 03-0003,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT HAMPDEN, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's special litigation committee, in its motion to dismiss derivative suit under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, § 7.44, failed to meet its burden to show director's independence, as evidence showed director was involved in alleged improper conduct and failed to exercise informed business judgment in making decisions concerning such matters.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Wallace, No. 05-P-668,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search warrant for defendants' second-floor apartment could have been read to extend to attic space as contiguous part of apartment; when police executed warrant, attic door, adjacent to second-floor apartment's rear door, was ajar and both the rear door and attic door opened to landing in hallway that led directly down to locked door at street.
|
|||||
| May's Case, No. 05-P-1517,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers' compensation benefits to an employee was reversed. IME's characterization of work events as the "major" or "primary" cause of the employee's disability was substantially equivalent to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 1(7A) requirement that work events be the "predominate" contributing cause to the employee's emotional disability.
|
|||||
| McKenna v. Swartz, Opinion No.: 96454, Docket Number: 04-00566,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 6, para. 4, a property owner's two adjoining lots were not merged, because, inter alia, the lots retained a separate identity with the exception of the limited intrusion of a garage, a shed, and a driveway, and there was no evidence that the property owner or prior owners were aware of the intrusion.
|
|||||
| Rodgers v. Conservation Comm'n, No. 05-P-778.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conservation commission made detailed and specific findings that proposed construction by property owners of their proposed pier would interfere with recreational shellfishing; thus, the appellate court could not say that the conservation commission's decision to prevent pier construction was unsupported by substantial evidence or arbitrary.
|
|||||
| Siddharth v. Reid, Opinion No.: 96455, Docket Number: 04-00228,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT BARNSTABLE, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lot had merged with another lot and was not separate under circumstances in which the deeds after 1979 treated the two lots as one parcel, with one set of metes and bounds, and one area and the assessor's map depicted the two lots as one.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
