Massachusetts Appeals Court Court Cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Rather (1994)

    The defendant was charged in six indictments with the following offenses: three acts of forcible rape of a child, two acts of assault and battery, and one act of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. He was convicted by a jury of all the charges.[1] On appeal, the defendant claims that the judge committed reversible error by allowing in evidence expert testimony concerning the patterns of disclosure by children who are victims of child sexual abuse.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 92-P-1066
  2. Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc. (1979)

    Although the underlying cause is a contract action for material sold and services delivered, the insertion in the complaint of a claim under G.L.c. 93A, § 11, requires consideration once again of the reach of that statutory provision to commercial disputes between business organizations.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  3. Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (1983)

    Sterilite Corporation (Sterilite), a manufacturer of molded plastics, was the insured under a so-called "comprehensive general liability policy," issued by Continental Casualty Company (Continental).[1] This provided protection against certain forms of products liability. In the present suit Sterilite sought a declaration that Continental was obliged to undertake its defense in a third-party action in which it was named as a defendant.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  4. Terrio v. McDONOUGH HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (1983)

    Without giving effect to subclassifications, the defendant McDonough argues seven categories of error in the trial of a civil action against him for sexual assault and battery and assault and battery. A jury returned a verdict of $15,000 for the plaintiff. The defendant impleaded his homeowner's insurance carrier,[1] and the trial judge directed a verdict for the insurer, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford), on the plaintiff's opening. We affirm.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  5. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co. (1991)

    The defendant, The Home Insurance Company (Home), appeals from a judgment which, in effect, declared it in breach of its duty to defend the plaintiff, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), and ordered it to pay certain settlement and defense costs incurred by or in behalf of CDM.[1] We affirm.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 89-P-111
  6. Zimmerman v. Kent (1991)

    This case involves rescission of a sale of real estate and an accompanying award of damages to the buyers. We draw our facts from the findings of the trial judge. The Zimmermans and the Kents resided in Connecticut. The Kents owned two summer rental properties in Chatham, Massachusetts, the subject property on Oyster Drive purchased in 1985, and another property on Morris Island purchased in 1981. The Zimmermans rented the Morris Island property for one week in each of the summers of 1984, [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 90-P-25
  7. Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. Holyoke (1987)

    On or about September 20, 1979, Sandra J. Smigiel was taken into protective custody by members of the Holyoke police department. She committed suicide by hanging herself while still in protective custody. Jefferson had issued an insurance policy to Holyoke insuring the police department and its members against certain risks. The policy carried an exclusionary clause that read as follows:

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: November 17, 1986
  8. VMark Software, Inc. v. EMC Corp. (1994)

    A common but foreseeable frustration of modern life — the failure of new computer hardware or software to work properly — produced this commercial altercation, which the parties unfortunately failed to anticipate by a contractual dispute resolution mechanism that might have avoided their time-consuming and expensive litigation. The controversy arose out of the June 1990 grant by VMark Software, Inc. (VMark), of a license to EMC Corporation (EMC) to use VMark's software product, a relational [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 92-P-1825
  9. USM Corp. v. Arthur D. Little Systems, Inc. (1989)

    This dispute concerns an attempt by the plaintiff, USM Corp. (USM), to acquire a computer system for use in its business of manufacturing and selling shoe-making equipment. The defendant Arthur D. Little Systems, Inc. (ADLS), was organized in 1971 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the defendant Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL), for the purpose of developing, marketing, and installing "turnkey" computer systems. USM and ADLS entered into a contract for such a system, but the result of considerable [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 88-P-650
  10. Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp. (1991)

    Even by the exuberant standards of the 1980's, the final judgment of $32,516,368.60 (entered on July 10, 1989) from which the defendants appeal was sizeable. What spawned the controversy was a failed effort by the plaintiff Schwanbeck to buy the assets of a division of the codefendant Federal-Mogul Corporation (F-M), and the ultimate sale of those assets by F-M to other buyers, who organized a new corporation, Vellumoid, Inc.[2] Disappointed and aggrieved, Schwanbeck brought an action which [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 89-P-1253
  11. Smartfoods v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Co. (1993)

    Seven distributors of cheese popcorn products for Smartfoods, Inc. (Smartfoods), each brought separate actions against Smartfoods after Smartfoods cancelled distribution arrangements with them. The distributors alleged the conventional panoply of grievances: breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unfair and deceptive trade practices (G.L.c. 93A); tortious interference with contractual and advantageous relations; and misappropriation of trade secrets. [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 92-P-897
  12. Shawmut Bank, NA v. Wayman (1993)

    The defendant, Ann Wayman, appeals from a judgment for over $1,000,000 entered against her based upon her personal guarantee of a commercial loan from the plaintiff, Shawmut Bank (Shawmut), to Arlanda International Corporation (Arlanda). We recite the essentially undisputed facts presented to the judge who allowed Shawmut's motion for summary judgment.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 91-P-1008
  13. Int'l Mobiles v. Corroon & black/fairfield (1990)

    Under that line of decisions — the most recent example is Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204 (1990) — which considers when an action accrues for purposes of applying a statute of limitations, discovery of the wrong and, in negligence cases, the concurrence of some harm trigger the running of the limitations period.[1] We conclude that in the case before us, an action against an insurance agent for failure to place coverage, the statute of limitations did not begin to run on the [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 89-P-565
  14. Gore v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc. (1984)

    More than four and a half years had elapsed before the plaintiffs brought a tort claim founded on an industrial accident in which Gerald Gore (Gore) was injured. Gore is the husband of Judith and the father of Tanya, Robin, and Gerome. The principal question in the case is whether the nature of Gore's injury was inherently unknowable, and the operation of the three-year statute of limitations[2] suspended, until a diagnosis of depression and organic brain syndrome was made on June 19, 1979. A [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  15. Mouradian v. General Electric Co. (1987)

    By his complaint, Michael Mouradian sought damages from General Electric, his former employer, for his alleged wrongful termination on the basis of age discrimination. Mouradian's wife, Nancy, sought damages for alleged loss of consortium. General Electric filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974). The motion was allowed and judgment entered dismissing the action. We affirm the judgment.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  16. Boyd v. Jamaica Plain Co-Operative Bank (1979)

    The plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their complaint seeking declaratory relief under G.L.c. 231A, on the ground of estoppel by judgment.[1] We affirm the judgment of dismissal.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  17. Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co. (1978)

    This case arises out of an accident which took place on the Trans Canada Highway[1] on April 18, 1970. The plaintiffs, Alexis McLaughlin, her daughter Mary Ann McLaughlin, and her niece Jocelyn Wujcik Wolfe, were travelling in a Ford truck on which a camper was mounted. Also present in the vehicle were Margaret Wujcik, sister of Alexis McLaughlin, and Catherine McDonald.[2] While they were travelling at about forty-five miles per hour, there was a blowout in the left rear tire; the truck went [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
  18. Chase Commercial Corp. v. Owen (1992)

    On September 6, 1983, the plaintiff, Chase Commercial Corp. (Chase), made a substantial loan, secured by liens on assets, to the G.S.F. Corporation (G.S.F.). At the same time the loan documents were executed, the defendants, Morton I. Owen and Joseph A. Ippolito, the principals of G.S.F., agreed to guarantee the corporation's indebtedness to Chase. Both of the documents comprising the loan and security agreement were signed on behalf of G.S.F. by Ippolito as president and included a provision [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 90-P-784
  19. Evans v. Multicon Construction Corp. (1991)

    More than a decade after initiating the action, Robert Evans on August 9, 1978, achieved the entry of a judgment of $124,176.45 in his favor against Multicon Construction Corporation ("MCC"). By that time, MCC, an Ohio corporation, had ceased doing business in Massachusetts, and, if it existed at all, was an empty shell. This appeal concerns Evans' efforts to reach alternate sources of recovery.

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Docket: 89-P-1126
  20. Glickman v. Brown (1985)

    This case is concerned with the conversion of the apartment building at 19 Winchester Street, Brookline, into condominium units. The event which chilled the relationship between the unit owners on the one hand and the developer (Brown) and his marketing agent (Keezer) on the other was the failure of the building's common heating system shortly after Brown and Keezer lost control of the management of the condominium. The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of the condominium management trust [...]

    Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court

1 of 163 Page(s)

  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5