MGL c.218, s.21 Small Claims Court does not have jurisdiction over cases of slander and libel
MGL c.231, s.91-94 Evidence in Libel and Slander
MGL c.258, s.10(c) Exempts defamations claims from Mass. Tort Claims Act.
MGL c.260, s.4 Statute of limitations. Actions for slander or libel "shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues."
Selected case law
Barrows v. Wareham Fire District, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 623 (2012)
Summary judgments was granted for the defendant because "defamation is explicitly enumerated in G. L. c. 258, § 10(c), as one of the torts exempted from the provisions of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, and the level of fault pleaded (i.e., intentional, reckless, or simply negligent conduct) makes no difference."
LaChance v. Boston Herald, Inc., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (2011)
The plaintiff, a prison inmate whose profile appeared on a dating site, was a "limited public figure," where he "actively sought the attention of those visiting the site by indicating that he was seeking friendship, romance, legal help, and monetary donations," and thus "voluntarily inject[ed] himself . . . into a particular public controversy."
Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc. 449 Mass. 42 (2007)
Upholding a $2.1 million jury verdict against the Boston Herald for reckless reporting of a judge's demeanor and handling of several cases, the court was highly critical of reporter Dave Wedge and wrote, "The press, however, is not free to publish false information about anyone (even a judge whose sentencing decisions have incurred the wrath of the local district attorney), intending that it will cause a public furor, while knowing, or in reckless disregard of, its falsity."
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)
A public figure must prove an additional element of "actual malice" in a defamation case.
Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20 (1st Cir., 2009)
Truth may not be a defense to a libel claim. The 1st circuit on panel rehearing overturned the grant of summary judgment in a case in which true but unpleasant statements about an employee were emailed to 1500 employees. MGL c.231, s.92 says that in a libel case, "truth shall be a justification unless actual malice is proved." Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, 427 Mass. 129 (1998) held that statute unconstitutional when applied to matters of public concern, but did not address its application to private citizens. This court did not reach the constitutional issue, but instead focused on the definition of "actual malice," and rather than relying on the "modern" definition of "actual malice" used in defamation cases, the court here determined that a more accurate definition was to be found in Conner v. Standard Publishing, 183 Mass. 474 (1903): "malice in the popular sense of hatred or ill-will."
Scholz v. Delp, 473 Mass. 242 (2015)
In this case, it was okay for a newspaper to publish opinions based on disclosed facts that did not imply that the writer had knowledge of undisclosed defamatory facts. Such opinions are not defamatory.
Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35 (1st Cir., 2003)
A review of the elements of defamation in Massachusetts
Massachusetts Superior Court Civil Practice Jury Instructions, MCLE, loose-leaf. Chapter 6, Defamation.
Business Torts in Massachusetts, MCLE, 2016. Chapter 9, Defamation, commercial disparagement, and false advertising.
Massachusetts Tort Law Manual, MCLE, loose-leaf. Chapter 7, Defamation.
v.14C, s.17.37: Libel-Elements
v.14C, s.17.42: Requirements
v.37 s.7.2: What is Defamatory
v.37, s.7.8: Truth
v.17A, s.43.1 In General
v.17A, s.43.3 Defamation-Innuendos
v.17A, s.43.6 Malice
v.17A, s.43.24 Truth
|Last updated:||May 8, 2018|