Legal Opinion

Berry v. Donovan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 20, 1905PublishedCited by 108 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, C. J.

This is an action of tort brought to recover damages sustained by reason of the defendant’s malicious interference with the plaintiff’s contract of employment. The plaintiff was a shoemaker, employed by the firm of Hazen B. Goodrich and Company at Haverhill, Massachusetts, under a contract terminable at will. At the time of the interference complained of he had been so employed nearly four years. The defendant was the representative at Haverhill of a national organization of shoe workers, called the Boot and Shoe Workers’ TJnion, of which he was also a member. The evidence showed that he…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Walker v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  2. Doremus v. HennessyIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. CummingNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  4. Carew v. RutherfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  5. Curran v. . GalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1897

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

3Cited by108 opinions

  1. United Truck Leasing Corp. v. GeltmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  2. Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Pickett v. WalshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  4. Lamb v. S. Cheney & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  5. Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API