Comey v. Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that c. 151B did not repeal pre-existing common-law tort for interference with advantageous relations
• recognizing that ch. 151B defines “ ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ only in the negative”
• holding that ”[i]n the absence of any indication to the contrary, we will not assume that the Legislature intended to cover relationships outside the traditional common law employer-employee relationship”
• finding that plaintiff’s tortious interference claim was not barred by Chapter 151B even though plaintiff’s theory was that defendant maliciously interfered because of his age
• holding that age discrimination is an improper motive
• rejecting argument that Chapter 15 IB preempted claim for intentional interference with advantageous relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).