Dillon v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Massachusetts Superior Court
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This matter comes before the court on the motion of the plaintiff, Thomas P. Dillon (“Dillon”) for summaiy judgment pursuant to Mass.RCiv.P. 56(c). Dillon alleges that the defendant’s practice of recording the telephone conversations of employees was unlawful, in violation of G.L.c. 272, §99 (the “Wiretap Act”). The defendant, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (“MBTA”) denies any illegality, claiming that: 1) the MBTA is not amenable to suit under the Wiretap Act because it is not a “person” as defined in the statute, 2) the recording practices were known to plaintiff, and therefore…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Community National Bank v. DawesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Cassesso v. Commissioner of CorrectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Peters v. Equiserve, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2006