Natural Design, Inc. v. Rouse Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “decisions of the federal courts interpreting § 1 of the Sherman Act guide” the Maryland courts’ understanding of the Maryland Antitrust Act
• holding that \decisions of the federal courts interpreting § 1 of the Sherman Act guide\ the Maryland courts' understanding of the Maryland Antitrust Act
• holding that \decisions of the federal courts interpreting § 1 of the Sherman Act guide\ the Maryland courts' understanding of the Maryland Antitrust Act
• noting that a claim may be asserted for “maliciously interfering” with another’s right to pursue his or her occupation
• explaining that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Maryland Antitrust Act are substantially similar to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and that courts’ analysis of the former should be guided by federal decisions under the latter
• stating that “the two general types of tort actions for interference with business relationships are inducing the breach of an existing contract and, more broadly, malicious or wrongfully interfering with economic relationships in the absence of a breach of contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).