 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commonwealth v. Asmeron, No. 06-P-886.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution committed by a minor, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 4B, because immunized testimony given by a minor involved in defendant's escort services was sufficiently corroborated by other testimony and documentary evidence, including ample evidence of the minor's age.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Coronel, No. 05-P-1810.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress the seizure from him of various items after police observed his interaction with a co-defendant was improperly granted because, considering all the circumstances presented, it was a reasonable inference and not a mere hunch that an exchange of contraband had taken place given, inter alia, the interaction's location.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Stewart, SJC-08663,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree was affirmed because evidence showed that defendant planned to murder an intended victim, searched for the intended victim, and shot the intended victim's girlfriend. Thus, the trial court's erroneous admission of certain statements were not prejudicial errors.
|
|||||
| Comstock v. Weston Kitchens Co., Opinion No.: 100289, Docket Number: 05-0688,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Costello v. Bd. of Appeals of Lexington, SJC-10007,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a clerk should have accepted a citizen's pro se complaint, plaintiff could have requested an order from a judge directing the clerk to accept the complaint and process it rather than resorting to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3. Given plaintiff's failure to do so and the deficiencies in the complaint, there was no error in denying relief.
|
|||||
| Fordham v. Butera, SJC-10002,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Land court erred in annulling ZBA decision to amend special use permit issued under Weston, Mass., Zoning Bylaw § V.B.5; contrary to land court ruling, § V.B.5 did not grant board unbridled discretion in granting permits as the bylaw's language set limits as to both the geography and kind of business for which a permit could be issued.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. Commonwealth, SJC-09988,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if an issue that formed the basis for a motion to dismiss a criminal indictment on statute of limitations grounds were novel, it could have been adequately addressed on direct appeal, and petitioner (the defendant) was not entitled to review as a matter of right under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3.
|
|||||
| Stephens v. Global NAPs, Nos. 06-P-0435 & 06-P-0836.,
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action under Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 105D, judge acted within his discretion in denying employer's motion to extend time to file appeal pursuant to Mass. RAP 4(a), as employer failed to establish reason for confusion over time for appeal. Front pay award should have been discounted to reflect present value.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
