Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2/4/1997
Ladd v. Polidoro
Citations
- 424 Mass. 196
- 675 N.E.2d 382
- 1997 Mass. LEXIS 18
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that plaintiff could not establish an abuse of process claim based on an attachment of property, even if the action was groundless, absent allegations of an ulterior motive
- using process for collateral advantage, to accomplish something for which the process is not designed is an improper purpose
- groundless claim and harm to defendant insufficient to show abuse of process, absent showing of ulterior motive
- groundless claim and harm to defendant insufficient to show abuse of process, absent showing of ulterior motive
- groundless claim and harm to defendant insufficient to show abuse of process, absent showing of ulteri- or motive
- issue not specified in written motion for directed verdict preserved so long as it had been raised at other points during trial and therefore was adequately brought to the judge’s attention
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wilkins
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Psy-Ed Corporation v. KLEIN HIRSCHMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2011-05-12· cited 152×
- Vittands v. SudduthMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2000-06-15· cited 89×
- Cady v. MarcellaMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2000-06-07· cited 53×
- McLaughlin v. City of LowellMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2013-07-25· cited 23×
- Keystone Freight Corp. v. Bartlett Consolidated, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2010-08-02· cited 17×
- Knapp v. Neptune Towers AssociatesMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2008-09-02· cited 12×
- Fafard Real Estate & Development Corp. v. Metro-Boston Broadcasting, Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2004-11-24· cited 11×
- SMS Financial V, LLC v. ContiMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2007-04-26· cited 11×
- Lund v. HendersonD. Massachusetts· 2014-05-27· cited 11×
- Thompson v. Myers (In Re Myers)D. South Carolina· 1998-08-27· cited 8×
- Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. MahlowitzMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2008-10-28· cited 8×
- Medford Co-operative Bank v. SkerryMass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.· 2004-08-12· cited 4×
- Duval v. HalliseyMassachusetts Superior Court· 2004-03-16· cited 1×
- Fiske v. Town of North AttleboroMassachusetts Superior Court· 2007-02-14· cited 1×
- 477 Harrison Ave, LLC v. JACE Boston, LLCMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2019-11-08
- Ronan v. KuvinMassachusetts Superior Court· 1997-03-14
- Astro Realty Trust v. Reveo D.S., Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court· 1998-01-16
- Bala v. AOtec, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court· 1998-06-02
- Charles v. Roads Corp.Massachusetts Superior Court· 1998-08-10
- Fink v. LaSelviaMassachusetts Superior Court· 1999-01-15
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Fishman v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1986-01-30· cited 178×
- Datacomm Interface, Inc. v. Computerworld, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1986-02-18· cited 150×
- Beecy v. PucciarelliMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1982-11-09· cited 118×
- D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1978-07-06· cited 95×
- Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1975-12-31· cited 92×
- Gabriel v. BorowyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1949-04-12· cited 63×
- Wood v. GravesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1887-05-06· cited 60×
- Acosta v. Honda Motor Co.Third Circuit· 1983-09-21· cited 54×
- Powers v. LenoMassachusetts Appeals Court· 1987-06-24· cited 41×
- Stewart v. ThigpenFifth Circuit· 1984-04-30· cited 41×
- Reardon v. SaddMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1928-01-25· cited 15×
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.