Fikes v. Furst

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a claim for interference with an at-will contract requires a showing that the defendant’s sole motive was to harm the plaintiff
• explaining that “[t]his Court ... has never stated that an improper motive must be the sole motive for interfering with an existing contract,” but has “only applied the ‘sole motive’ test to prospective contracts”
• noting the courts are not as protective of prospective contractual relations as of existing contracts
• discussing professional critique and explaining that “statements that may appear in isolation to be defamatory may in fact be particularly appropriate or acceptable criticism when made in an academic setting”
• “This Court, though, has never stated that an improper motive must be the sole motive for interfering with an existing contract.”
• “This Court, though, has never stated that an improper motive must be the sole motive for interfering with an existing contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).