Schlesinger v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that telephone calls were not part of “pattern of harassment” and “were not calculated to annoy or disturb”
• explaining that the contours of the statutory prohibition against the invasion of privacy in Massachusetts were designed to be developed “on a case-by-case basis, by balancing relevant factors”
• explaining that facts concerning the purpose, tone and length of the calls at issue, as well as the amount of disruption to the plaintiff’s daily routine, were relevant factors to consider
• explaining that facts concerning the purpose, tone and length of the calls at issue, as well as the amount of disruption to the plaintiff’s daily routine, were relevant factors to consider
• suggesting that intrusive conduct demonstrating pattern of harassment might be actionable
• noting that a debtor \knows that [a] creditor may take action to collect the - 17 - debt and thus has a lower expectation of privacy than [a] person who receives unsolicited [sales] calls\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).