Legal Opinion

Kaveney v. Murphy

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided February 18, 2000No. 99-11138-NGPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GERTNER, District Judge.

This case involves the application of Rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct to prohibit court authorized interviews conducted by Plaintiffs counsel of members of the Cambridge Police Department, outside the presence of its counsel. Plaintiff, Thomas D. Kaveney (“Kaveney”) is a Sergeant in the Cam bridge Police Department (“Department”). He is suing Harold Murphy (“Murphy”), former Deputy Superintendent of the Department and now Superintendent, claiming that Murphy interfered with Kaveney’s career advancement because Kaveney…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Niesig v. Team INew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. International Business Machines Corp. v. EdelsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
  3. Mompoint v. Lotus Development Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1986
  4. Morrison v. Brandeis UniversityDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989
  5. Dent v. KaufmanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wagner v. City of HolyokeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
  2. Clark v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
  3. In re Criminal Investigation of John Doe, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
  4. Rios v. RamageDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API