Legal Opinion

Harmon Law Offices, P.C. v. Attorney General

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 28, 2013No. 12-P-407PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVuono, J.

Acting pursuant to her authority under the Massachusetts consumer protection act, G. L. c. 93A (c. 93A or the *831statute), the Attorney General issued two civil investigative demands (CIDs or demands) to Harmon Law Offices, P.C. (Harmon), seeking information regarding its foreclosure and eviction practices.1 Harmon challenged the demands and filed a complaint seeking relief under § 6(7) of the statute.2 After a hearing, a judge of the Superior Court concluded that Harmon had not met its burden of showing good cause to set aside the CIDs and dismissed the complaint. Harmon appeals, claiming that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kurker v. HellMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
  2. CRIBERG v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  3. Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment & LoanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Fisher v. LintMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  5. Kirkland Construction Co. v. JamesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
  2. Mack v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
  3. In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County · 2017
  4. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL v. USiDG LLCMassachusetts Superior Court · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API