Sena v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a threat to use lawful means to reach an intended result is not actionable under the MCRA
• holding that plaintiff’s MCRA claim is dependent on their Fifth Amendment claim and since their Fifth Amendment claims fails, their MCRA claim must also fail
• holding that as a general rule a claim for spousal loss of consortium requires proof of a tortious act that caused the claimant’s spouse personal injury
• holding that where the Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function exception precluded recovery by husband and wife for false arrest, it also precluded their recovery for loss of each other’s consortium
• finding that an officer’s decisions as to “whether, when, how, and whom to investigate, and whether and when to seek warrants for arrest” fall within the discretionary function exception as they are “based on considerations of, and necessarily affect, public policy”
• affirming allowance of summary judgment because “[n]either applying for an arrest warrant, nor making an arrest pursuant to an issued warrant” amounted to extreme and outrageous conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).