Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
D. Kansas· 7/18/1997

Bushnell Corp. v. ITT Corp.

Citations

  • 973 F. Supp. 1276
  • 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11429
  • 1997 WL 455100

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting claim as insufficient to enable a defense where alleged communications were made to “customers and the industry in general”
  • applying Kansas law and granting judgment on the pleadings against tortious interference with contract claim because plaintiff hadn’t “identified any third-party contract that was breached as a result of improper interference by defendant”
  • denying dismissal and permitting amendment only so plaintiff may allege clarifying facts
  • “If, on the other hand, plaintiff does not state a claim with respect to certain allegations because the procedural pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a
  • “[P]laintiff has alleged that it had ‘contractual relations’ with its customers and vendors. It has not, however, alleged that any particular contract was breached as a result of conduct by defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lungstrum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bushnell Corp. v. ITT Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.