McGanty v. Staudenraus (1995)

But see Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220, 232 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532 , 901 P2d 841 (1995).

Penney Co., Inc., 719 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (Or. 1986) (behavior that is “rude, boorish, tyrannical, churlish and mean” rather than “outrageous in the extreme” does not support an IIED claim), abrogated in part on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 852 (Or. 1995).

Or. 2022) (citing McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995)).

Tortious Interference To state a claim for tortious interference under Oregon law, a plaintiff must plead and prove six elements: “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the econ…

Id. at 641 (citing McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 557 (1995)).

Arena Corp., 333 Or. 401, 411 (2002); McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 454 (1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 557, 901 P.2d 841 (1995).

Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059, 1063 (Or. 2002) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 849 (Or. 1995)).

That same question also 9 informs plaintiffs’ claim for intentional interference with a prospective inheritance, which 10 Oregon recognizes as an extension of intentional interference with economic relations and 11 requires proof of “improper means.” Allen v. Hall, 974 P.2d 199 , 202–04 (Or. 1999); 12 McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995) (en banc).

Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059, 1063 (Or. 2002) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 849 (Or. 1995)).

App. 348, 357-58 (2008) (citing McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995)).

To state an IIED claim under Oregon law, Plaintiff must allege that the officers (1) intended to inflict severe emotional distress upon her, (2) their acts caused Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) their acts “constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995) (quoting Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220, 236 (1989)).

Under Oregon law, a plaintiff asserting a claim for IIED must prove: “(1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Under Oregon law, a plaintiff asserting a claim for IIED must prove: “(1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995) (en banc) (internal quotati…

Or. 2022)(citing Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 312 Or. 198, 204 (1991), abrogated on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995)).

IIED Under Oregon law, a plaintiff asserting a claim for IIED must prove: “(1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 , 901 P.2d 841, 844 (1995) (citations omitted).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 551-57 (1995) (adopting objective standard for constructive discharge).

Reyna’s belief that PPB would retaliate against her is insufficient to support a claim for constructive discharge under Oregon law, which requires a showing that the employer “deliberately created” “unacceptable working conditions” with “the intention of forcing the employee to leave the employment.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 553 (1995).

Or. 2022)(citing Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 312 Or. 198, 204 (1991), abrogated on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995)).

IIED Under Oregon law, a plaintiff asserting a claim for IIED must plead: “(1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995) (quotation marks omitted).

Under Oregon law, a claim for intentional interference with economic relations (IIER) “allows a party to a contract, Page 3 – ORDER TO AMEND when that contract is breached by the other contracting (second) party, to seek damages from a third party that induced the second party to breach the contract.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 536 (1995).

“To state a claim for intentional interference with economic relations, a plaintiff must allege each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economi…

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995) (en banc) (paragraph breaks added).

To show that an agent has interfered with his or her principal’s contract, the plaintiff must prove the agent acted solely in furtherance of [his or her] personal interests so as to preserve the logically necessary rule that a party cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)); McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 846-47, 849 (Or. 1995) (holding that employee acting within scope of employment …

June 29, 2015) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 849 (Or. 1995)).

Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 348 F.3d 1116 , 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995).

Or. 2022)(citing Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 312 Or. 198, 204 (1991), abrogated on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995)).

Or. 2022)(citing McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

The several documents constituting Springer’s agreement to sell the property to the Matsudas reflect Kelly’s representation 65 ECF No. 33 at 7:6–14. 66 McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995). 67 ECF No. 69-7 Ex. 8 at 2. 68 ECF No. 69-5 Ex. 6. of Springer from April 25 through May 11, 2022—after the communications by and on behalf of Jeff.69 The Mattsons are not liable for interference with Springer’s relationship with Kelly. 4.

Plaintiff asserts that she experienced two adverse employment actions: 4 The Court notes that Oregon law requires an additional element for a constructive discharge claim: that “the employer desired to cause the employee to leave employment as a result of those working conditions or knew that the employee was certain, or substantially certain, to leave employment as a result of those working conditions.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 856-57 (Or. 1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 , 901 P.2d 841, 844 (1995).

Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942 , 947 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 , 901 P.2d 841, 849 (1995)).

“To state a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, a plaintiff must plead that (1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant's acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant's acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 , 901 P.2d 841,849 (1995) (internal citation omit…

Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942 , 947 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 , 901 P.2d 841, 849 (1995)).

To state an IIED claim, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 849 (Or. 1995).

Ct. App. 1984) (“Plaintiff’s evidence must show that defendant had no legal justification for his action; proof of actual malice is not sufficient,” and if an employee’s actions are within the scope of his or her authority, then they are not malicious.); Abdullah v. State, 771 N.W.2d 246, 256 (N.D. 2009) (“A state employee may not be held liable in the employee’s individual capacity for acts occurring within the scope of the employee’s 22 employment.”); Courie v. ALCOA, 832 …

Under Oregon common law, a claim for intentional interference with economic relations must allege “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship..., (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995).

P’ship v. Seafirst Corp., 320 Or. 638, 651 (1995); McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

Or. 2019) (quoting McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995)).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 856 (Or. 1995). “[C]ommon law wrongful discharge… may only be invoked when another claim does not provide a plaintiff with an adequate remedy.” Walker v. Oregon, 778, 484 P.3d 1035, 1045 (Or. 2021).

To establish a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff must prove “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship, (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535 (1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 , 901 P.2d 841, 535 (1995).

McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995).

App. 348 , 357–58 (2008) (citing McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995)).

See McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 537 (1995) (“[A] party to a contract cannot be liable for interference with that contract.”). v. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc., 216 Or.