Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Citation
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019) 2.
- Parent Document
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
- Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Full Text
1,190 chars2. Defamation. The plaintiffs argue that the judge improperly dismissed their defamation claims because their complaint sufficiently alleged that Roberts made a statement about DuLaurence with a "reckless disregard of the truth." A defamation complaint "must allege facts indicating that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff -- that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or is otherwise actionable without proof of economic loss." Flagg v. AliMed, Inc., 466 Mass. 23, 37 (2013). Statements "that may prejudice the plaintiff's profession or business" are actionable without proof of economic loss. Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 630 (2003). Defamation that could "prejudice the plaintiff's profession" includes assertions that "the plaintiff lacks a necessary characteristic of the profession," id. at 630-631, or statements that have "a devastating and continuing impact" on the plaintiff's professional relationships, Van Liew v. Eliopoulos, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 129 (2017).