Hunt v. Cornerstone Golf, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under section 48.193(l)(b) a tortious interference claim arose not in Florida, but in Washington, D.C. and Tennessee, where the defendant sent correspondence pertaining to an existing business relationship
• “The determinative issue for this court is not whether Cornerstone has proven that tortious interference actually occurred, but rather whether the tort, as alleged, occurred in Florida.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).