Skip to main content

Blackstone v. Cashman

Citations

  • 448 Mass. 255
  • 25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 953
  • 860 N.E.2d 7
  • 2007 Mass. LEXIS 16

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s interference, “in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means”
  • recognizing cause of action for intentional interference with a prospective contractual relation as described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B (1979) 11
  • affirming that “the actual malice standard [is] the correct standard to apply when an unlawful interference claim is asserted by an employee against an official of the employer”
  • setting aside verdict where we could not say “that the jury’s answer to the special question implied a finding” of required element
  • explaining that “actual malice” is a “higher standard” than “improper means”
  • defining the tort, in the employment context, as interference with \a present or prospective contract or employment relationship\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cordy, Cowin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

108 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.