Fox v. Deese

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 1:4 and correlative statutes represent “a radical departure” from rules of common-law pleading
• holding that if defendants were working within the scope of their employment for the city, then effectively only one entity exists
• holding that misrepresentations concerning future events may form sufficient basis for fraud to survive demurrer
• holding that an employee could only be held liable for tortious interference where “he was acting outside the scope of his employment”
• holding that defendants acting within the scope of their employment could not intentionally interfere with their employer’s contract or conspire with the employer to breach the contract
• explaining that when an employee acts within the scope of his employment, his employer’s “contract was also his contract, and he could not interfere with it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).