Penney has tortiously interfered, and continues to tortiously interfere, with a contract that Macy's validly entered into with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.
|
|
The United States cannot acquire jurisdiction tortiously or by disseisin of the state, or by occupancy with merely the tacit consent of the state.
|
|
The law with respect to the services of a third party who provides voluntary care for a tortiously injured plaintiff has developed somewhat erratically in England.
|
|
The union had picketed in front of the employer's business with the object of persuading current employees and job applicants to not enter the building. The union also picketed to pressure workers to break employment contracts with the company. The objective was to force higher wages. The company successfully sought an injunction in court, under the doctrine of intentional interference with contract, alleging that the union was tortiously interfering with the relations between management and worker.
|
|
In August 2002, AMO was served with a summons and complaint by a former Plan employee alleging that AMO tortiously interfered in his employment. After a trial in 2009, the jury cleared AMO of the tortious interference charge. During the fiscal year ending in March 2006, AMO discovered that the former National Vice-President Deep Sea, Thomas Kelly, entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. government. In the agreement he pleaded to one count charging him with embezzling $32,500 by submitting false and inflated expense vouchers from 1996 to 2001.
|
|
Sartin Trucking, 195 W.Va. 671, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia did away with a requirement that a tortiously killed fetus be viable outside the womb at the time the tort was committed. The deceased unborn child's personal representative may maintain an action pursuant to the state's wrongful death statute, the court held, cautioning that the cause of action does not extend against a woman who has a legal abortion. In current spoken French, the phrase would now be rendered as "dans le ventre de sa mère".
|
|
In 1984, Pennzoil made an informal but binding contract with Getty Oil to purchase a large portion of Getty Oil, in order to give Pennzoil rights to Getty's oil deposits. Following the deal, the Texaco oil company, operating under the belief the deal was not yet final, encroached on the complex merger in an attempt to acquire Getty for itself. Pennzoil sued Texaco in Texas state court, alleging that Texaco tortiously induced Getty to breach the contract with Pennzoil. At first it was adjudicated by Judge Anthony J.P. Farris; it was finished by visiting Judge Solomon (Sol) Casseb of San Antonio.
|
|
Rudzewicz and MacShara refused to comply and continued operation of their restaurant even after they were served the notice. Burger King response was to file a lawsuit in May 1981 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming breach of contract and trademark infringement. Burger King sought an injunction against the pair preventing them from operating the restaurant and seeking damages because MacShara and Ruzewicz were "... tortiously infringing its [Burger King] trademarks and service marks through their continued, unauthorized operation as a Burger King restaurant". The company also sought reimbursement of all legal fees and costs associated with the filing.
|
|
In 1992, Skolnick, JAMA's editor George Lundberg, and the AMA were sued for $194 million by Deepak Chopra and two Transcendental Meditation (TM) organizations over Skolnick's article titled, "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme Promises the World Eternal 'Perfect Health.'" The suit alleged Skolnick's report on TM's health care products and services marketed under the trademarked name Maharishi Ayurveda was libelous and that it tortiously interfered with their business interests.The Lancaster Foundation, Inc., The American Association for Ayur-Vedic Medicine, Inc. vs. Andrew A. Skolnick, George D. Lundberg, M.D.; United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 82 C 4175; Judge Charles P. Kocoras In an August 1992 decision,Lancaster Foundation v Skolnick 21 Media Law Reporter, 1021 (ND Ill 1992) judge Charles Kocoras rejected the plaintiff's motion to enjoin JAMA and Skolnick from publishing statements about Chopra and Hari Sharma and Maharishi Ayurveda alleged to be defamatory, noting that the plaintiffs did not allege that the statements about them in the article were false or misleading.
|
|