Zarr v. Washington Tru Solutions, 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, under the improper motive theory, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s sole motive was to harm
• affirming “the district court’s use of the sole-motive standard as applied to the improper- motive ground for intentional interference” in a case involving an at-will employment relationship
• discussing a claim for intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship, and stating that any claim of intentional interference with an at-will employment relationship is treated as interference with a prospective employment relationship
• characterizing “the sole-motive-to-harm- requirement” as “enshrined in [New Mexico] Supreme Court authority”
• “[T]he tort can be accomplished by either of two methods: improper motive solely to harm the plaintiff or improper means. If proven, either basis standing alone will support liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).