14 results for 'cat:"Tort" AND cat:"Interference With Contract" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Kendall denies the suing refurbished electronics dealer’s motion for sanctions and an injunction against the refurbished electronics shop it is suing. The suing dealer accused the other shop of filing false complaints about its products so as to disrupt its business, but the court finds the suing dealer has not provided sufficient evidence to back up those claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kendall, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv6258, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, Defamation, interference With Contract
J. Landau finds the lower court properly issued a take-nothing judgment in this matter of alleged tortious interference. Evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that a third-party factoring company did not engage in business disparagement or tortious interference with existing contracts when it contacted a freight brokerage company’s primary client seeking assistance in collecting payment from the freight brokerage. Affirmed
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Landau, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 01-22-00623-CV, Categories: Debt Collection, tort, interference With Contract
J. Blakey grants an asset management firm and its executives’ motions to dismiss counterclaims brought against them by one of the firm’s former managers. The asset management firm sued the former manager for breach of contract, fraud and trade secret misappropriation over his alleged lies to clients and intentional sabotage of business relationships. The former manager shot back with counterclaims of defamation, tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, but the court finds he has not sufficiently alleged any of these claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Blakey, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv4269, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: tort, Defamation, interference With Contract
J. Leinenweber denies the originally sued insurance firm’s motion to transfer this case to Utah, and partially grants the originally suing insurance and capital firms’ motion to dismiss their opponents’ fraud, conspiracy, wage law violation and tort claims. This is a convoluted contract dispute arising from a number of businesspeople who passed their insurance and capital firms between each other and spent time working for each other. Now, in claims and counter-claims, they accuse each other of business malfeasance of various stripes, which the court attempts to simplify in this ruling eliminating all but three claims several of the parties on both sides face.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Leinenweber, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1109, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, tort, interference With Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Urbanski denies the competitor's motion to dismiss a defamation suit. The company provides electronic pull tabs for regulated charitable gaming market and demonstrated that the competitor's comment to a potential client accusing the company of being involved in a severe state investigation could be perceived as making a statement of fact.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Urbanski , Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 7:23cv321, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, Defamation, interference With Contract
J. Mize finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the sales coordinator by denying motions for directed verdict and to set aside the verdict in this tortious interference complaint. The impact rule does not apply to intentional torts. However, there is confusion in jurisprudence concerning the applicability of whether the impact rule applies to the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship. The court certifies two questions to the First District Court related to Florida's impact rule and how it applies to tort of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Mize, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 6D23-1379, Categories: tort, interference With Contract
J. Kennedy finds the lower court properly granted the former funeral home director's motion for summary judgment on misappropriation and tort claims. The funeral home's customer information regarding "preneed funeral contracts" was not a trade secret under Ohio law because it was provided to various employees and was available to the public through records requests. Meanwhile, because the tort claims brought by the funeral home were based on the same set of facts as the trade secrets claim, they were preempted. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Kennedy, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3687, Categories: Trade Secrets, tort, interference With Contract
Per curiam, the court of appeals finds that the trial court improperly dismissed with prejudice in favor of the appellees a second amended complaint for a “pay-on-death” beneficiary. The court granted this motion based on another similar case by reading the holding to broadly. The beneficiary had made no claim for tortious interference with the inheritance and the alleged bank accounts were owned by her outside the estate. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: 6D23-1351, Categories: tort, Trusts, interference With Contract
Per curiam, the appeals court finds the trial court improperly denied the logistics provider's motion to amend its complaint against two of its former employees alleging tortious interference, breaches of the duty of loyalty and civil conspiracy to seek punitive damages. The logistics provider has made a "reasonable showing" of a "reasonable basis" for punitive damages, including by providing emails and text messages allegedly showing the two former employees conspiring with a competitor to solicit the provider's employees and to secretly take over one of the provider's offices for the competitor's benefit. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 23-0235, Categories: tort, Damages, interference With Contract