Glazer v. Chandler

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “numerous cases” emanating from Pennsylvania courts comport with this definition of the tortious interference claim
• mere breach of a contract having incidental effect of injuring plaintiffs business relations with others is not sufficient for tort of intentional interference
• “To permit a promisee to sue his promissor in tort for breaches of contract inter se would erode the usual rules of contractual recovery and inject confusion into our well-settled forms of actions.”
• “To permit a promisee to sue his promissor in tort for breaches of contract inter se would erode the usual rules of contractual recovery and inject confusion into our well-settled forms of actions.”
• \[t]o permit a promisee to sue his promisor in tort for breaches of contract inter se would erode the usual rules of contractual recovery and inject confusion into our well-settled forms of actions\
• “[t]q permit a promisee to sue his promisor in tort for breaches of contract inter se would erode the usual rules of contractual recovery and inject confusion into our well-settled forms of actions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).