Legal Opinion
Blackstone v. Cashman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 18, 2007PublishedCited by 159 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCordy, J.
This case is before us for the limited purpose of considering whether the defendant was entitled to an “actual malice” instruction when the plaintiff’s claim of intentional interference with advantageous economic relations was submitted to the jury. To answer this question, we first consider what must be proved to establish that the interference was improper, *256where the defendant is an official of the corporation that employed the plaintiff, and the economic relation allegedly interfered with is one of employment or prospective employment. We next consider whether the defendant’s position as a…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- United Truck Leasing Corp. v. GeltmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Gram v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- King v. DriscollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled ChildrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by159 opinions
- Psy-Ed Corporation v. KLEIN HIRSCHMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- Corporate Technologies, Inc. v. HarnettCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
- Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Sindi v. El-MoslimanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018
- Masingill v. EMC Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
154 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.