Reported Decisions

Sample Reported Decisions -- Attorney Salinger

Mack v. Paradigm Properties, et al., Suffolk Superior Court (Boston) Case No. SUCV2002-04812 (March 2006) -- The Verdict Reporter (MA, CT & RI) Volume 17, Issue 11
Attorney Salinger represented a young professional who, after leaving his employer's premises at night, was assaulted by a knife-wielding homeless person. The client suffered non life-threatening injuries which did not include stab wounds but did include a torn rotator cuff and some emotional distress. The client claimed that the attack was forseeable and preventable, but that the client's employer was negligent in failing to provide adequate security. Prior to trial, the defendants refused to make a settlement offer, so the case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Attorney Salinger's client and awarded him $35,000plus $14,706 in prejudgment interest for a total judgment of $49,706.

Shephard v. Bay Windows, Suffolk Superior Court (Boston) Civil Action Number 01-0284-E, 2003 WL 22225764, (Sept. 2003).
Attorney Salinger represented a businessman who claimed that he was defamed when a local newspaper published a front-page article about a chamber of commerce for which Attorney Salinger's client served as a bookkeeper and publicist. Attorney Salinger's client claimed that the article contained misrepresentations and misleading statements that gave the overall impression that the businessman had engaged in financial mismanagement, had a conflict of interest, and possibly received revenue that he did not deserve. The defendant newspaper tried to have the case dismissed on summary judgment. While the court found that the businessman was a limited public figure (and therefore required to demonstrate the higher standard of malice to prevail on the defamation claim), the court found that with respect to a significant part of the claim, Attorney Salinger's client would be entitled to proceed. The case was not dismissed. Shortly before trial, the case settled. The newspaper published a front-page apology to Attorney Salinger's client and made alterations to its Website to reflect the apology and corrections to the article. Attorney Salinger's client also received other consideration which cannot be disclosed because of a confidentiality agreement between the parties.

Inc. v. McCracken, 312 F.Supp.2d 82 (D. Mass., 2004) (Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts)
Attorney Salinger, together with his co-counsel, represented a computer software licensor, its principal and employees after a Computer software licensing corporation sued Attorney Salinger's corporate client and its principal who was former principal of the plaintiff corporation's predecessor alleging misappropriation of confidential information and customers, and asserting claims for, inter alia, tortious interference with contract and violations of Copyright Act and state trade secrets statutes. The plaintiff Corporation moved for the disqualification of defendants' attorneys (Attorney Salinger and co-counsel), alleging conflict of interest. The United States District Court, (Collings, United States Magistrate Judge), held that: (1) no "substantial relationship" existed between attorneys' former representation of corporation's predecessor and their current representation of competitor's principal in regard to claim for violation of non-compete clause; (2) no substantial relationship existed as to copyright infringement claim; (3) no substantial relationship existed concerning abuse of confidentiality agreements; and (4) no substantial relationship existed regarding unfair competition claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff's attempts to disqualify Attorney Salinger were unsuccessful, and the Motion was denied. Shortly thereafter, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the suit.