Ramirez v. Blinken

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s interference, “in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means”
• recognizing cause of action for intentional interference with a prospective contractual relation as described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B (1979) 11
• affirming that “the actual malice standard [is] the correct standard to apply when an unlawful interference claim is asserted by an employee against an official of the employer”
• setting aside verdict where we could not say “that the jury’s answer to the special question implied a finding” of required element
• explaining that “actual malice” is a “higher standard” than “improper means”
• defining the tort, in the employment context, as interference with \a present or prospective contract or employment relationship\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).