Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Restatement’s inquiry into whether conduct is improper “is substantially similar to the ‘malice’ standard currently applied by New Jersey courts.”
• holding that tortious interference with contractual relations requires a “luring away, by devious, improper and unrighteous means, of the customer of another”
• holding that a complaint alleges actual damages because it sets forth that the plaintiff lost gains from a potential contract as a result of the interference
• holding that a defendant employee who performs an allegedly tortious act may still be found individually liable, even if the employee was acting on the defendant employer’s behalf and realized no personal benefit
• holding that a defendant employee who performs an allegedly tortious act may still be found to be individually liable, even if that employee was acting on the defendant employer’s behalf and realized no personal benefit
• stating that false statements that adversely affect a plaintiff’s reputation, business, trade, or profession are actionable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1987-06-23