<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mass. Appellate Briefs</title><link>http://jackcushman.com/mab/</link><description>Recent cases docketed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/MassAppellateBriefs" /><feedburner:info uri="massappellatebriefs" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item><title>SJC-10712: JOULE, INC. &amp; others vs. RANDI SIMMONS</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/QnOwbkfu5L8/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10712"&gt;SJC-10712: JOULE, INC. &amp;amp; others vs. RANDI SIMMONS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Administrative%20Law"&gt;Administrative Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Arbitration"&gt;Arbitration&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Discrimination"&gt;Discrimination&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Employment"&gt;Employment&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate all "claims and disputes" bars her from asserting claims before the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The employee, Randi Simmons, signed an agreement shortly after beginning employment in which she agreed to arbitrate all disputes and claims, and acknowledged that she was waiving her right to ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10712"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/QnOwbkfu5L8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10712/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10712/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10715: ANAWAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. &amp; another vs. DIVISION OF INSURANCE</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/505q7Vt6Yjk/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10715"&gt;SJC-10715: ANAWAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. &amp;amp; another vs. DIVISION OF INSURANCE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Consumer%20Protection"&gt;Consumer Protection&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Insurance"&gt;Insurance&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Statute%20of%20Limitations"&gt;Statute of Limitations&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a government consumer protection action "accrues" when the violation occurs, or when the government has reason to know of it.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Anawan Insurance Agency paid commissions to a broker from 1997 to 2001, even though the broker's license had expired early in the relationship. The Massachusetts Division of Insurance discovered ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10715"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/505q7Vt6Yjk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10715/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10715/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10716: COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD EDDINGTON &amp; another</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/XVrSeVDSNxA/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10716"&gt;SJC-10716: COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD EDDINGTON &amp;amp; another&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Constitutional%20Law"&gt;Constitutional Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Procedure"&gt;Criminal Procedure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Judicial%20Review"&gt;Judicial Review&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Search%20and%20Seizure"&gt;Search and Seizure&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether police were justified in impounding and searching a vehicle when the driver was arrested at 4:15AM in a "high crime area" and the car's owner could not be contacted.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Officers saw the defendants leave an after-hours party at a residential home at 4:15 AM, carry open bottles of beer into a car, and drive away. (Remarkably, parties at ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10716"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/XVrSeVDSNxA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10716/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10716/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10717: MARK CASAVANT &amp; another vs. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD.</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/RWeZqcy-fJk/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10717"&gt;SJC-10717: MARK CASAVANT &amp;amp; another vs. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, LTD.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Consumer%20Protection"&gt;Consumer Protection&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Contract%20Law"&gt;Contract Law&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a plaintiff may recover under 93A for a violation that was not disclosed until after sending its demand letter, but prior to filing suit.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The plaintiffs were scheduled to take a cruise on September 16, 2001, with the defendant Norwegian Cruise Line. As a result of the September 11 attacks, they decided not to ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10717"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/RWeZqcy-fJk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10717/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10717/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10718: COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH G. HAMILTON</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/a36bvzA1eEo/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10718"&gt;SJC-10718: COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH G. HAMILTON&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Law"&gt;Criminal Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Probation"&gt;Probation&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a defendant intimidates a witness by making a threat after proceedings are closed; whether a defendant commits the crime of threat to commit a crime, where the threat is communicated only to the child victim's mother.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant, Kenneth Hamilton, was incarcerated after violating probation. After leaving prison he left a voicemail message with his former probation officer, blaming her for his incarceration and threatening to ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10718"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/a36bvzA1eEo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10718/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10718/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10721: TOWN OF BOXFORD vs. MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT &amp; others</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/U7WFQBaav1E/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10721"&gt;SJC-10721: TOWN OF BOXFORD vs. MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT &amp;amp; others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; October 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Environmental%20Law"&gt;Environmental Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Local%20Government"&gt;Local Government&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Mandamus"&gt;Mandamus&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Sovereign%20Immunity"&gt;Sovereign Immunity&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether the Town of Boxford may sue to enjoin the Mass. Department of Transportation from operating a road salt storage facility.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The Mass. Department of Transportation ("DOT") maintains a road salt storage facility in the Town of Boxford, which it uses to de-ice major highways. Salt has contaminated the groundwater near ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10721"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/U7WFQBaav1E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10721/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10721/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10724: GLOBAL COMPANIES, LLC vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/LX3frn-Bwdk/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10724"&gt;SJC-10724: GLOBAL COMPANIES, LLC vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Commerce%20Clause"&gt;Commerce Clause&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Constitutional%20Law"&gt;Constitutional Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Tax"&gt;Tax&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a ferry company transporting many out-of-state visitors between points within Massachusetts is "engaged in" interstate commerce.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Global Companies, a fuel company, sold fuel to Hy-Line and collected sales tax. Hy-Line provides about one quarter of the transportation between Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Its ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10724"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/LX3frn-Bwdk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10724/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10724/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10713: COMMONWEALTH vs. AMAURY GAUTREAUX</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/ilMIWjJNRyA/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10713"&gt;SJC-10713: COMMONWEALTH vs. AMAURY GAUTREAUX&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; October 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Procedure"&gt;Criminal Procedure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Immigration"&gt;Immigration&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether police violation of the Vienna Convention justifies a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was arrested and charged with crimes three times in 2003. At no time was he given notice of his right to communicate ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10713"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/ilMIWjJNRyA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10713/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10713/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10714: MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY vs. EXELON EDGAR, LLC &amp; others</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/xqXBoiALiVU/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10714"&gt;SJC-10714: MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY vs. EXELON EDGAR, LLC &amp;amp; others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; October 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Damages"&gt;Damages&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Energy"&gt;Energy&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Real%20Property"&gt;Real Property&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Takings"&gt;Takings&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Zoning"&gt;Zoning&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; How should a plaintiff prove damages from a taking based on a development plan that is currently barred by statute?
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant water authority took property by eminent domain from the plaintiff energy company to build a sewer relief system. Market value was paid based on anticipated industrial uses. The ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10714"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/xqXBoiALiVU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10714/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10714/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10722: PSY-ED CORPORATION &amp; another vs. STANLEY D. KLEIN &amp; another</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/lzackM4NKRo/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10722"&gt;SJC-10722: PSY-ED CORPORATION &amp;amp; another vs. STANLEY D. KLEIN &amp;amp; another&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; October 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Contract%20Law"&gt;Contract Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Corporations"&gt;Corporations&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Disabilities"&gt;Disabilities&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Discrimination"&gt;Discrimination&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Employment"&gt;Employment&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a retaliation claim may lie under c. 151B where the employee was terminated three years before the employer's alleged retaliatory action; whether board members may be liable for tortious interference with their own corporation's contract.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Plaintiff Psy-Ed, a magazine publisher, employed defendant Kimberly Schive in its Boston office from 1993 to 1996. In 1996 Psy-Ed closed the Boston office and fired most employees. Schive, who ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10722"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/lzackM4NKRo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10722/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10722/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10697: COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL CARR &amp; another</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/_PpY62zBM5M/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10697"&gt;SJC-10697: COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL CARR &amp;amp; another&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Procedure"&gt;Criminal Procedure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Search%20and%20Seizure"&gt;Search and Seizure&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether college police improperly entered a dorm room without consent or a warrant, on reports of conduct that violated the residence policy but not the law.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Resident directors for a Boston College dorm brought two students to campus police with a report that defendant Daniel Carr was bullying them and boasted of having a knife, and ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10697"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/_PpY62zBM5M" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10697/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10697/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10693: MICHAEL A. CAMARA &amp; another vs. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp; another</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/25P27AQqViw/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10693"&gt;SJC-10693: MICHAEL A. CAMARA &amp;amp; another vs. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp;amp; another&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Employment"&gt;Employment&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether an employer may offer an employees a choice between deducting costs of accidents from their wages and disciplinary action.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; ABC Disposal Service ("ABC") employs drivers to collect solid waste throughout the Commonwealth. By company policy, when a driver damages an ABC truck or third party property, ABC first determines ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10693"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/25P27AQqViw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10693/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10693/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10672: JOHN N. MORRISSEY, TRUSTEE vs. NEW ENGLAND DEACONESS ASSOC. &amp; others</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/qizqydSvatc/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10672"&gt;SJC-10672: JOHN N. MORRISSEY, TRUSTEE vs. NEW ENGLAND DEACONESS ASSOC. &amp;amp; others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Public%20Employees"&gt;Public Employees&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Sovereign%20Immunity"&gt;Sovereign Immunity&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Torts"&gt;Torts&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether claims of private nuisance against public employers are subject to the limitations of the Mass. Tort Claims Act.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant Mass. Department of Transportation ("MassDOT") granted permits for certain private parties to modify a state highway next to the plaintiff's property, as part of a construction project ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10672"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/qizqydSvatc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10672/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10672/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10692: HELEN HERMAN &amp; another vs. JOHN SULLIVAN &amp; others</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/eTaBX0sgaqs/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10692"&gt;SJC-10692: HELEN HERMAN &amp;amp; another vs. JOHN SULLIVAN &amp;amp; others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Consumer%20Protection"&gt;Consumer Protection&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Damages"&gt;Damages&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Torts"&gt;Torts&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether double or treble damages under c. 93A must be awarded individually against each defendant, or may be awarded jointly and severally.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The plaintiff was a tenant in the defendants' apartment building. The two landlords (father and son) had made substantial modifications to the building without appropriate building permits and inspection. As ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10692"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/eTaBX0sgaqs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10692/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10692/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10694: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. ANTONIO IBANEZ (and a consolidated case)</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/Q1rkHTA1RIE/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10694"&gt;SJC-10694: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. ANTONIO IBANEZ (and a consolidated case)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Foreclosure"&gt;Foreclosure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Real%20Property"&gt;Real Property&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether banks, trustees in mortgage securitization schemes, could foreclose on properties some ten to fourteen months before they acquired explicit mortgage assignments from the original mortgagees.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The plaintiffs, two banks, each foreclosed on properties in 2007, after advertising foreclosure sales. The banks purported to be "Present holder of said mortgage" in the notices, on the basis ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10694"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/Q1rkHTA1RIE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10694/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10694/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10696: MARY BISHOP vs. TES REALTY TRUST &amp; another</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/EtrLiCcRkVM/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10696"&gt;SJC-10696: MARY BISHOP vs. TES REALTY TRUST &amp;amp; another&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; September 2010
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Commercial%20Property"&gt;Commercial Property&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Landlord%20and%20Tenant"&gt;Landlord and Tenant&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Real%20Property"&gt;Real Property&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether commercial landlords are required by&amp;nbsp;G.L. c. 186, &amp;sect; 19&amp;nbsp;to repair unsafe conditions upon written notice, regardless of the terms of the lease.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The plaintiff tenant leased a commercial building from the defendant landlord to be used as a salon. During the lease, the tenant gave written notice to the landlord that the ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10696"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/EtrLiCcRkVM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10696/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10696/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10698: COMMONWEALTH vs. PHILIP S. BUNTING</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/xSGpQM09lVw/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10698"&gt;SJC-10698: COMMONWEALTH vs. PHILIP S. BUNTING&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Constitutional%20Law"&gt;Constitutional Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Procedure"&gt;Criminal Procedure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Probation"&gt;Probation&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a defendant violates probation running "from and after" his jail sentence if he commits a crime while still serving the sentence.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant was convicted of various crimes and sentenced to two and a half years in the house of corrections, with a ten year term of probation to run "from ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10698"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/xSGpQM09lVw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10698/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10698/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10702: HELEN KIRK vs. KEVIN SULLIVAN &amp; others</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/-9OsExjUke4/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10702"&gt;SJC-10702: HELEN KIRK vs. KEVIN SULLIVAN &amp;amp; others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Civil%20Procedure"&gt;Civil Procedure&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/First%20Amendment"&gt;First Amendment&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Judicial%20Review"&gt;Judicial Review&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a civil hearing for commitment of a person found not guilty by reason of mental illness should be closed to the public to protect the defendant's privacy.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant was found not guilty&amp;nbsp;by reason of mental illness&amp;nbsp;of murdering her four-year-old child, and committed to a state treatment facility. Three years later, the Department of Mental ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10702"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/-9OsExjUke4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10702/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10702/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10691: BOSTON GAS COMPANY vs. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/m88yQrTMmo4/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10691"&gt;SJC-10691: BOSTON GAS COMPANY vs. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Administrative%20Law"&gt;Administrative Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Commercial%20Property"&gt;Commercial Property&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Energy"&gt;Energy&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Regulated%20Utilities"&gt;Regulated Utilities&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Tax"&gt;Tax&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; 
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; Boston Gas is a regulated utility whose property and profits are heavily controlled by the Department of Public Utilities ("DPU"). Boston Gas owns nearly 1000 miles of delivery pipe and ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10691"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/m88yQrTMmo4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10691/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10691/</feedburner:origLink></item><item><title>SJC-10675: COMMONWEALTH vs. ERIC S. POIRIER</title><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~3/bKrDHKQmjqE/</link><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10675"&gt;SJC-10675: COMMONWEALTH vs. ERIC S. POIRIER&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;div style='padding-left:50px'&gt;
		&lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;em&gt;Argument:&lt;/em&gt; Not yet scheduled.
		&lt;/p&gt;
		
			&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keywords:&lt;/em&gt;
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Criminal%20Law"&gt;Criminal Law&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/GPS"&gt;GPS&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Probation"&gt;Probation&lt;/a&gt;
				 - 
			
				&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/Sex%20Offenders"&gt;Sex Offenders&lt;/a&gt;
				
			
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
	
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Question Presented:&lt;/em&gt; Whether a probationer could be held on a finding of probable cause for probation violation because the probation department was unable to supply a GPS device for him to wear.
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
		
			&lt;p&gt;
				&lt;em&gt;Facts:&lt;/em&gt; The defendant was convicted of a sex offense and ordered to wear a GPS tracking device as a term of his probationary sentence after release from jail. Probation was unable ...
			&lt;/p&gt;
		
             
        &lt;p&gt;
			
			&lt;a href="http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10675"&gt;Read more &amp;#187;&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassAppellateBriefs/~4/bKrDHKQmjqE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:31:05 -0400</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10675/</guid><feedburner:origLink>http://jackcushman.com/mab/case/SJC-10675/</feedburner:origLink></item></channel></rss>
