Tortious interference (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Tortious interference" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1,478th place
868th place
332nd place
246th place
2nd place
2nd place
26th place
20th place
low place
6,257th place
4,919th place
2,808th place
1st place
1st place
low place
low place
809th place
536th place
low place
low place

cornell.edu

law.cornell.edu

  • Ash, Elliott T. (4 May 2010). "Intentional interference with contractual relations". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 23 January 2017.

crownofficechambers.com

doi.org

  • S., J. C. (June 1977). "Negligent Interference with Contract: Knowledge as a Standard for Recovery". Virginia Law Review. 63 (5): 813–839. doi:10.2307/1072614. JSTOR 1072614.

findlaw.com

smallbusiness.findlaw.com

caselaw.findlaw.com

  • Commerce Bank v. Deborah Flavin Durland, 141 S.W.3d 434 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004). (Believed to be the first claim for tortious interference with inheritance expectancy to withstand appeal in the State of Missouri.)

jstor.org

  • S., J. C. (June 1977). "Negligent Interference with Contract: Knowledge as a Standard for Recovery". Virginia Law Review. 63 (5): 813–839. doi:10.2307/1072614. JSTOR 1072614.

leagle.com

  • See Union Oil Co. v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding negligent interference with prospective advantage actionable when risk of harm was foreseeable); In re Kinsman Transit Co., 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) (dictum: stating that negligent interference with contract should receive same legal treatment as other negligent acts); J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal. 3d 799, 804, 157 Cal. Rptr. 407, 598 P.2d 60 (1979) ("Where a special relationship exists between the parties, a plaintiff may recover for loss of expected economic advantage through the negligent performance of a contract although the parties were not in contractual privity") (emphasis supplied); Settimo Associates v. Environ Systems, Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 842, 845, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 757 (1993) ("The tort of intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage imposes liability for improper methods of disrupting or diverting the business relationship of another which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition") (emphasis supplied) (internal citation omitted). There used to be California authority that no cause of action exists for negligent interference with contractual relations. See Fifield Manor v. Finston, 54 Cal. 2d 632, 636—637, 7 Cal. Rptr. 377, 354 P.2d 1073 (1960). But the J'Aire decision, supra, appears to have overruled Fifield. Nevertheless, however illogical it may seem, it is arguable that California does not recognize a tort of negligent interference with contractual relations, but does recognize a tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. See Young v. Fluorotronics, S.D. Calif. 2010). (This is comparable to recognizing manslaughter but decriminalizing murder.)

legislation.gov.uk

lexology.com

trucounsel.com

  • Richards, Jared. "TruCounsel.com". Nevada Theories of Liability. Retrieved 9 September 2011.

web.archive.org