CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 1999-05407
Regular Panel Decision

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc.

This case involves appeals by defendants Ramon Rosa and Leigh Russo from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn. The Appellate Division modified another order, granting Leigh Russo's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (defamation) against her, finding the statement subject to qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to allege malice. Additionally, the plaintiff was denied leave to replead the sixth cause of action (conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contractual relations) against both defendants, as New York does not recognize an independent tort for conspiracy. The Supreme Court's decision to not dismiss the second cause of action against Ramon Rosa for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations was upheld.

DefamationTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionLeave to RepleadQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureConspiracy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Allsup

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. 14-09-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Deborah Downing v. Don Burns and Sherry Burns

Deborah Downing sued Don and Sherry Burns for tortious interference and defamation after they alleged she stole trade secrets and threatened to sue her new employers. Downing, previously an assistant to Don Burns, copied parts of a policy manual she authored before resigning. The Burnses countersued for theft of trade secrets. A jury found in Downing's favor on all claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Burnses did not conclusively prove theft of trade secrets and that sufficient evidence supported the defamation and tortious interference findings, but the damages for tortious interference were unsupported. The case was remanded for a new trial due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

Tortious InterferenceDefamationTheft of Trade SecretsLost WagesEconomic DamagesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewRealty Business
References
26
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonios A. Alevizopoulos & Associates, Inc. v. Comcast International Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiffs sued Comcast for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, stemming from an alleged joint venture in Brazil for paging and cellular services. Plaintiffs claimed Comcast, Villares, and Gonin concealed their continued negotiations and formed a joint venture after telling plaintiffs the deal had failed. Comcast moved for summary judgment arguing claims were time-barred and, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied Comcast's motion for summary judgment, finding that public disclosures in Brazil did not automatically preclude equitable tolling. The court also denied Comcast's motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract claim and the conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty claim, finding sufficient pleading. However, the court granted Comcast's motion to dismiss the tortious interference with business relations claim as redundant.

Tortious InterferenceContract DisputeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFraudulent ConcealmentFiduciary DutyConspiracyJoint Venture
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baty v. ProTech Insurance Agency

This case concerns a dispute between an insurance agency, Baty & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. (BAI), and its shareholder Rick D. Baty, against former officers Connie Suzanne Malliaros and Treva C. Neill, their new company ProTech Insurance Agency, and four insurance companies: Aetna, Hartford, AMS, and Fidelity. The appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful diversion of business, tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's summary judgments, which were largely in favor of the defendants. The court reversed the summary judgment regarding tort claims against Malliaros, Neill, and ProTech, and for Hartford on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, remanding these for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the summary judgments for the other insurance companies on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and for all insurance companies on claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, clarifying that the prior settlement and rescission agreement did not release the tort claims.

Insurance LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceContract LawCivil ConspiracyRescissionRehearing OpinionEmployment RelationshipBusiness Disparagement
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Italian & French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc.

This case involves a New York wholesale liquor distributor (Plaintiff, later identified as Italian & French Wine Company) suing Negociants U.S.A., Inc. and Lauber Imports, Ltd. Plaintiff alleged breach of an oral exclusive distributorship contract and tortious interference with contractual relations, among other claims. Plaintiff contended that Negociants terminated its agreement without reasonable notice due to Lauber's threats and interference. Both Negociants and Lauber filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended denying these motions, a recommendation adopted by District Judge Arcara. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently stated claims for breach of contract against Negociants and for tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages against Lauber. Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied.

Breach of contractTortious interferenceUnjust enrichmentMotions to dismissOral contractDistributorship agreementPunitive damagesExclusive agencyNew York lawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Funes v. VILLATORO

The appellate court addressed a dispute between Ursula Marisol Funes and Mauricio Funes (appellants) and Ernesto Antonio Villatoro (appellee) concerning the ownership of trade names "Buenos Dias El Salvador" and "Festival Guanaco," and claims of tortious interference. The initial dispute arose from an advertising disagreement for an El Salvadoran festival, leading the Funeses to register the names Villatoro claimed to own and send a cease-and-desist letter. Villatoro sued, alleging libel, tortious interference, and seeking declaratory judgment on trade name ownership. While a jury initially sided with Villatoro, the appellate court reversed several key findings due to insufficient evidence regarding trade name ownership, tortious interference, and lost profits. Consequently, the court reversed the declaratory relief and permanent injunction granted to Villatoro and remanded the issue of attorney's fees.

Trade NamesSecondary MeaningTortious InterferenceLost ProfitsDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewRadio Show
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 489 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational