Casco Marina Development, L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• conferring immunity onto government actions exhibiting a discretionary function because it is a matter of making a policy choice
• reciting the result in Sorrells, but relying on it only for the proposition that inducing a failure to perform, rather than a breach of, a contract is sufficient to establish an element of tortious interference
• “The elements of tortious interference with prospective business advantage mirror those of interference with contract.” (citing Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1247 (D.C. 1986))
• “[T]he elements of tortious interference with contract are: ‘(1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of a breach of the contract; and (4
• “This court has stated that the elements of tortious interference with contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of a breach of the contract; and (4) damages resulting from the breach.”
• “[W]hile we have articulated the third element of tortious interference as procurement of breach, . . . a ‘breach’ as such is not required, but merely a failure of performance, whether by the terms of the contract in question or not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).