Legal Opinion
Aarco, Inc. v. Baynes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 29, 1984PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.
The plaintiff (Aarco) appeals from a separate judgment, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 54 (b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974), entered following allowance of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Aarco’s complaint alleged that the defendants had libeled Aarco and had intentionally interfered with advantageous relationships. The claims are based on two letters written by Baynes on behalf of the union as its business manager to the director of the public facilities department of the city of Boston objecting to Aarco, a nonunion contractor and the low bidder on then unawarded contracts for work on…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Carey v. New England Organ BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Godbout v. CousensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc., a Missouri Corporation v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 655Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Raffensberger v. MoranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Beverly Hills Foodland v. United Food WorkersDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.