Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)

Citation: Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)
Parent Document: Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2007-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356738/cook-v-cullen/ ↗

Full Text

1,129 chars

The Defendants counterclaim that Mr. Cook violated the MCRA by stating that he would use his political influence to have Cullen’s builder’s license revoked. To establish a violation of the MCRA, the plaintiffs in counterclaim must prove that (1) their exercise of enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the either the U.S. or Massachusetts, (2) have been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, and (3) that the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation, or coercion. Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 644 (2003). Economic coercion, standing alone, is actionable under the MCRA. Id. at 648. An objective standard applies — whether a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would be threatened, intimidated, or coerced by the defendant’s conduct. See Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, 474-75 (1994). This determination requires a finding of fact, and a decision on summaiy judgment is not appropriate in this case. See Tortora v. Inspector of Buildings of Tewksbury, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 120, 123-24 (1996).4 ORDER

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text