Legal Opinion

Pine v. Rust

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 23, 1989PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLynch, J.

This action arises under the wiretap statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99 (1986 ed.). 3 After a nonjury trial in the Housing Court of the City of Boston, the judge awarded statutory liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants concede that the tape recording was unlawful, but appealed the awards of damages and attorney’s fees. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs.

The facts found by the trial judge may be summarized as follows. At all times relevant to this…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. International Fidelity Insurance v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  2. Heller v. Silverbranch Construction Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  3. Leardi v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  4. Commonwealth v. VitelloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  5. McGrath v. MisharaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  2. Kraft Power Corp. v. MerrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
  3. Gouin v. GouinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
  4. Birbiglia v. Saint Vincent Hospital, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  5. Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham GroupMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014

21 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