Legal Opinion

Vittands v. Sudduth

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 15, 2000No. 98-P-294PublishedCited by 84 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLenk, J.

Pro se defendant Judith Sudduth, also plaintiff-in-counterclaim, contends that a Superior Court judge erred in granting summary judgment on her counterclaims for abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and in denying her costs under the Declaratory Judgment Act, G. L. c. 231A, and Mass.R.Civ.P. 11(a), 365 Mass. 753 (1974). The plaintiffs, also defendants-in-counterclaim, appeal from the denial of their special motion to dismiss brought pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, popularly known as the anti-SLAPP3 statute.

Facts and procedural history. At the heart of this case…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  2. Agis v. Howard Johnson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  3. Simon v. SolomonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Klein v. CatalanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  5. Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998

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

3Cited by84 opinions

  1. Psy-Ed Corporation v. KLEIN HIRSCHMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
  2. Fabre v. WaltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  3. Polay v. McMahonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  4. Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
  5. Morse Bros., Inc. v. WebsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001

79 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