Insight Technology, Inc. v. FREIGHTCHECK, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[persuading a person to break a contract for the indirect purpose of injuring the plaintiff or benefiting the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff is a malicious and actionable act if injury arises from it”
• stating that it has previously recognized “the black letter law that corporate officers and directors occupy a fiduciary relationship to the corporation and its shareholders, and are held to the standard of utmost good faith and loyalty.” (internal quotations omitted)
• explaining the origin of these elements as being those of the related tort of tortious interference with contractual or business relations
• plaintiff must establish elements of tortious interference “regardless of whether [the claim is] denominated [as] ‘aiding because trial court “did not engage in a res judicata analysis”
• complaint against competing entity sufficiently set forth a cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, which was deemed to be equivalent to a claim for tortious interference
• “regardless of whether denominated ‘aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty,’ ‘procuring a breach of fiduciary duty,’ or ‘tortious interference with a fiduciary relationship,’ Georgia law authorizes a plaintiff to recover upon proof of the following elements: (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).