Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• denying owner and his 19 company’s trade libel claim because the emails at issue were opinions, vague, or true 20 statements
• applying the substantial factor test in an intentional interference with contractual relations action and noting that “a cause of ... damage ... is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about ... damage”
• applying the substantial factor test in an intentional interference with contractual relations action and noting that “a cause of ... damage ... is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about ... damage”
• applying the substantial factor test in an intentional interference with contractual relations action and noting that “a cause of . . . damage . . . is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about . . . damage”
• finding certain statements non-defamatory where “the emails at issue disclosed the facts upon which the opinions were based … and a reader of the emails could view those Web sites [containing those facts] and was free to accept or reject [the] opinions.”
• applying the substantial factor test in an intentional interference with contractual relations action and noting that “a cause of . . . damage . . . is something that is a substantial 1558 BANK OF NEW YORK v. FREMONT GENERAL factor in bringing about . . . damage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).