Massachusetts Law About Harassment, Stalking or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- MGL c.209A, s.11 Protection and custody of pets. Applicable to c.258E orders as well as 209A orders.
- MGL c.258E Harassment Prevention Orders, effective May, 2010.
- MGL c. 265, s.37: Violations of Constitutional Rights
- MGL c. 265, s.43: Stalking
- MGL c. 265, s.43A: Criminal Harassment; Punishment
- MGL c. 269, s14A: Annoying Telephone Calls
- 18 USC 2261A Interstate Stalking
- 47 USC 223 Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls in the District of Columbia or in Interstate or Foreign Communications
Restraining Order and Harassment Forms, Mass. Court System.
Petition and Order Issued Pursuant to GL c.209A, s.11 Relative to Domesticated Animals, October 2012. Scroll to last three pages for forms.
- Annoying and Accosting Persons of the Opposite Sex (G.L. c. 272, § 53), 2007.
- Civil Rights Violations (G.L. c. 265, § 37), 1995.
- Criminal Harassment (G.L. c. 265, § 43A), 2011.
- Harassing or Obscene Telephone Calls (G.L. c. 269, § 14A), 2011.
- Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), 2011.
- Threat to Commit Crime (G.L. c. 275, §§ 2-4), 2009.
- Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, § 7), 2011.
- Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E, § 9), 2011.
Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140 (1976). Expanded liability to cases without physical harm. Court held that "one who, by extreme and outrageous conduct and without privilege causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress even though no bodily harm may result."
Brown v. Nutter, McClennen and Fish, 45 Mass. App.Ct. 212 (1998). Legal secretary brought action against law firm and one of its attorneys for emotional distress. Court held that while the Workers' Compensation Act barred her claim against the firm, it did not immunize the attorney from personal liability.
Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8 (1999). "In order to convict a defendant under 'following' prong of stalking statute, Commonwealth is required to prove more than two incidents of following."
Commonwealth v. McDonald, 462 Mass. 236 (2012). Staring, without more, is not "sinister." Under MGL c. 265, s.43A, "The act of regularly driving on a public street, looking at people in their driveways or on their porches, or at their dogs and gardens, cannot alone support conviction of a wilful and malicious act directed at a specific person."
Commonwealth v. Richards, 426 Mass. 689 (1998). Court held MGL chapter 269, section 14A does not apply to allegedly annoying facsimile transmissions.
Commonwealth v. Wotan, 422 Mass. 740 (1996). "Term 'repeatedly' in statute making it a misdemeanor to telephone someone repeatedly solely to harass, annoy or molest requires three or more telephone calls."
George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (1971). Court held that "one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability."
O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012). G.L. c.258E held to be constitutional. Also, prior to this case, the only review available was to seek relief from a single justice of this court under G. L. c. 211, § 3. "After the date of the issuance of the rescript in this case, all litigants seeking judicial review of harassment prevention orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E are directed to the Appeals Court."
Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540 (1982). Great summary of the history of the tort and its required elements.
Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 696 (2000). "Openly conducting adulterous affair was not sufficiently outrageous conduct to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58 (2014) "This court concluded that appeals from expired civil harassment prevention orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E should not be dismissed as moot where the parties have a continuing interest in the case, including removing any stigma from the name, and any law enforcement records, of the party against whom such an order issued."
What is the Difference Between an Abuse Prevention Order and a Harassment Prevention Order? An excellent resources which details the differences between MGL c.209A and MGL c.258E.
Harassment Prevention Orders, Northwestern District Attorney (Franklin & Hampshire Counties plus Athol). Pamphlet outlines the law and provides helpful phone numbers.
Orders Concerning Domesticated Animals in Conjunction With Restraining Orders: Memo from Chief Justice of the Trial Court and Court Administrator, October 31, 2012. Includes explanation of the law and procedures, with forms.
"Complaints for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." 12A Am Jur Pleading and Practice Forms 536-578 (Includes forms).
Damages, Interest and Attorneys' Fees in Massachusetts Litigation, MCLE, loose-leaf. pp. 26-27.
"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," 43 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 1.
"Liability of Employer, Supervisor, or Manager for Intentionally or Recklessly Causing Employee Emotional Distress," 52 ALR 4th 853.
Massachusetts Practice, vol. 37 (Tort Law), Thomson West, 2005, sec. 13.7.
Massachusetts Superior Court Civil Practice Jury Instructions, MCLE, loose-leaf, Chapter 8.
Massachusetts Tort Damages, 2d ed., by Michael B. Bogdanow, Lexis, 1999 (with supplement), Chapter 6.
Massachusetts Tort Law Manual, MCLE, loose-leaf, Chapter 6.
Modern Status of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress as Independent Tort; Outrage," 38 ALR 4th 998.
Mottla's Proof of Cases in Massachusetts, by Marc G. Perlin, Thomson West, 1992 with supplement, vol. 2, Chapter 15.
Proving Mental and Emotional Injuries, James Publishing, loose-leaf.
"Validity, Construction and Application of Stalking Statutes," 29 ALR 5th 487.