Schinkel v. Maxi-Holding, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts need not be predicated on Long-Arm Statute when defendant served with process while in forum under transient-jurisdiction doctrine
• explaining that “[tjhere is authority for treating ... a cover letter amendment, accepted by the other party, as effecting a modification of the written contract”
• reversing allowance of motion to dismiss claim that defendant violated G.L.c. 93A, in part, because plaintiff could have been an “independent consultant” rather than an employee
• reversing allowance of motion to dismiss claim that defendant violated c. 93A, in part, because plaintiff could have been an “independent consultant” rather than an employee
• \There is no need to predicate jurisdiction over [defendant] on the long-arm statute. Jurisdiction over his person was conferred by service of process in Boston\
• a factually detailed complaint may reveal that an element is not sufficiently alleged and will not be established

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).