Leventhal v. Dockser
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff appeals from orders sustaining “with leave to amend denied” demurrers to the declarations in both actions. Both declarations are in three counts. The demurrers were properly sustained. The accounts for abuse of criminal process fail to allege that the defendants either directed the criminal process or had control or influence over those in charge of the prosecution. See Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365, 367, 368-369; McLean v. Naumkeag Trust Co. 268 Mass. 437, 439. The counts, characterized by the plaintiff in his briefs as being for “extortion” and “coercion and duress,” do not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bartley v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Wood v. GravesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Foster v. Shubert Holding Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Desmond v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Commonwealth v. LeventhalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Frank J. Linhares Co., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Leventhal v. DockserMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- River Vale v. E & R OFF. INTERIORSNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.