Skip to main content

Draghetti v. Chmielewski

Citations

  • 416 Mass. 808
  • 626 N.E.2d 862
  • 22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1456
  • 1994 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.

  • holding that where a communication is susceptible of both a defamatory and non-defamatory meaning, a question of fact exists for the jury
  • concluding defendant’s letter containing false statement that resulted in termination of employment could be considered improper means
  • treating unlawful interference with advantageous business relations together with and under rules for unlawful interference with contractual relations
  • upholding award of emotional distress damages to plaintiff who proved that defendant’s interference had caused him to lose part-time job
  • sending letter with false statement to convince third party to terminate -7- plaintiff’s employment was improper means
  • also rejecting argument that police chief “and the citizens who read the [newspaper] share a ‘common interest’ in the communication which entitles him to a qualified privilege”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Abrams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

113 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.