Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. [1]
Since its formulation, the doctrine has been extended to confer immunity from a variety of tort claims, including claims of unfair competition, tortious interference and abuse of process. [15] The Ninth Circuit recently held that Noerr–Pennington also protects against RICO Act claims when a defendant has sent thousands of demand letters ...
The summary judgment for tortious contract interference was vacated and remanded to the district court for further consideration because the requirements for summary judgment - that as a matter of law, judgment could only possibly be found in favor of one party even when all disputed facts are considered in a light most favorable to the other ...
A complaint filed in State District Court last summer accuses Laura and her husband, Stephen Craig, of exploitation of a vulnerable adult, unjust enrichment, undue influence, tortious interference ...
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
In the issue regarding tortious interference, it found The College Network correct the verdict could not stand without a reasonable probability that a contract would be established. Moore Educational Publishers had based reasonable probability from its reputation, and the tortious interference was inferred in the falling profits.
Tortious interference – One person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. Conspiracy (civil) – An agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.. The decision established the rule that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot seek damages for antitrust violations committed by the original manufacturer or service provider, but it permitted such claims ...