Matter of Matthews v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a court need not address qualified immunity where summary judgment affirmed on Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claim
• explaining that “[i]t is rare for a MCRA claim to involve no physical threat of harm” and “the exception for claims based on non-physical coercion remains a narrow one.”
• evidence can be used “to infer that [the defendant] was aware of [the] wrongful purpose”
• “[T]he MCRA contemplates a two-part sequence: [liability may be found where] (1) the defendant threatens, intimidates, or coerces the plaintiff, in order to (2
• “It is rare for a MCRA claim to involve no physical threat of harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).