Howell Laboratories, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court was unaware of any cases “directly applying either of California’s continuing-wrong principles to tortious-interference claims”
• “Indeed, the parties cite no 8 cases, and the Court has found none, directly applying either of California’s continuing-wrong 9 principles to tortious-interference claims.”
• “California courts look to whether the plaintiffs have 5 reason to at least suspect that a type of wrongdoing has injured them.”
• “Indeed, the parties cite no cases, and the Court has found none, directly applying 6 either of California's continuing-wrong principles to tortious-interference claims.”
• tortious interference 25 claim accrues “at the date of the wrongful act’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).