Eserhut v. Heister

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant may not interfere with a terminable-at-will employment contract
• holding that the defendant may not interfere with a terminable-at-will employment contract
• “[I]f the elements of the tort are otherwise met, then the coemployees can be held hable for intentionally interfering with [plaintiff’s] employment with [the employer].”
• “On appeal, the court stated in dictum that if the actions of the coemployees were not within the scope of their employment, then they were third parties who were potentially hable for the tort.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).