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. 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. 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 Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn.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

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

Denco CS Corporation v. Body Bar, LLC

Body Bar, LLC sued Denco CS Corporation after Denco filed mechanic's liens on property leased by Body Bar, leading the new property owner, Bre Throne Preston Park, LLC, to withhold a $25,000 tenant improvement reimbursement. Body Bar sought declaratory relief, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference, and Denco counterclaimed for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Body Bar, invalidating the liens and finding Denco liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidity of Denco's liens and the dismissal of Denco's claims but reversed the findings of Body Bar's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and the $25,000 damage award, remanding these issues for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence of damages.

Contract disputeMechanic's lienStatutory lienConstitutional lienTortious interferenceBreach of contractQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentReal property
References
37
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. 03-17-00707-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

CoreALM, LLC v. Keen Fusion, Inc.

CoreALM, LLC appealed a trial court's judgment that awarded Keen Fusion, Inc. damages for tortious interference with contract and business disparagement. CoreALM contended that the economic loss rule barred the award and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that the economic loss rule did not preclude Keen Fusion's recovery on its tort claims because the duty not to interfere with contractual relationships arises from common law, independent of any contractual agreement between the interfering party and the party whose contract was interfered with. The court also found factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that CoreALM tortiously interfered with Keen Fusion’s contract with eCommQuest, which proximately caused Keen Fusion to lose an engagement with Johnson Controls. Given the valid finding on tortious interference, the court did not address the challenge to the business disparagement claim.

Tortious Interference with ContractEconomic Loss RuleBusiness DisparagementContract BreachAppellate ReviewFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceProximate CauseCommon Law DutyIndependent Contractor DisputeSubcontractor Agreement
References
17
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

World Football League v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc.

The Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc. (Club) sought a temporary injunction against the World Football League (WFL) to prevent WFL from directly or indirectly contracting with Dallas Cowboys players under existing contracts, or inducing them into promotional activities for WFL. The Club alleged tortious interference with contractual relationships. Justice Bateman, presiding over the interlocutory appeal, found no evidence of tortious conduct or threats thereof by WFL. The court emphasized the players' freedom to contract for future services and ruled that such agreements, and their associated publicity, do not constitute tortious interference with existing contracts. Consequently, the trial court was deemed to have abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction, which was subsequently dissolved.

Tortious InterferenceContract LawProfessional SportsFootball LeagueTemporary InjunctionBreach of ContractFreedom of ContractSports ContractsAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc. v. Town of Charlton

Plaintiff Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc., a general construction contractor, sued J. Paul Vosburgh Architect, EC. for tortious interference with contract after the Town of Charlton terminated plaintiff's contract. The architect was retained by the Town to provide design and contract administration services. The Town terminated plaintiff's contract based on a consultant's report detailing plaintiff's performance failures and delays. The Supreme Court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's tortious interference claim. On appeal, the order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff's fifth cause of action was dismissed, as plaintiff failed to prove the architect's conduct was the 'but for' cause of the contract termination.

tortious interference with contractsummary judgmentconstruction contractcontractual disputearchitect liabilityagency relationshipcausationappellate reviewbreach of contractprofessional services
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,907 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