Legal Opinion
Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided May 7, 1997No. 96-P-1203PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGillerman, J.
A judge of the Superior Court denied the defendants’ special motions to dismiss under G. L. c. 231, § 59H, added by St. 1994, c. 283, § 1, commonly referred to *573as the anti-SLAPP2 statute (statute), the material provisions of which we set out in the margin.3 Thereafter, a single justice of this court granted leave to appeal the judge’s ruling to a full panel of this court. The appeal raises, for the first time, issues regarding the scope and application of the statute.4 Certain material facts that provide the background for this controversy are undisputed. From 1987 to July, 1990, the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United Mine Workers v. PenningtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking UnlimitedSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- McLarnon v. JokischMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. SavageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Keegan v. PellerinMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
- Office One, Inc. v. LopezMassachusetts Superior Court · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.