6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Holdings, L.P.green1 sentence2025Count IV—the tortious interference claim that the Majority remands to the Court of Chancery—necessarily fails because there is no underlying breach of contract, an essential element of a tortious interference claim.156 And we agree with our colleagues in the Majority that the record does not 156 See WaveDivision Holdings, LLC v. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 49 A.3d 1168 , 1174 (Del. 2012) (holding that to prevail in a tortious interference with contract claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) there was a contract, (2) about which the particular defendant knew, (3) an intentional act that was a sign | 1 | 1 |
Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Investments, Inc.green1 sentence2022Cf. Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Invs., Inc., 67 A.3d 444, 453 (Del. 2013) (recognizing a tortious interference with contract claim—not a contract or fraud claim—where a non-party allegedly takes acts that cause a party to breach its contract). | 1 | 1 |
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co.green1 sentence2021In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,31 the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment barred tortious interference claims and protected the right of 30 Id. at 254; Kanaga, 687 A.2d at 178 . 31 458 U.S. 886, 916-17 (1982). 15 individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of influencing societal or governmental change, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.32 The tortious interference with contract claim additionally fails because Plaintiff does not allege in the Complaint that Defendant’s sole motivation in making the statements was to interfere with his con | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896- 97 (Del. 2002)). 39 Id. 4 by specific facts,” nor “draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” 40 The Court will grant the motion to dismiss “only if it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.”41 Discussion A tortious interference with contract claim must satisfy five elements: “(1) a contract, (2) about which defendant knew, and (3) an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, (4) without justification, (5) which 2024Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896- 97 (Del. 2002)). 39 Id. 4 by specific facts,” nor “draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” 40 The Court will grant the motion to dismiss “only if it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.”41 Discussion A tortious interference with contract claim must satisfy five elements: “(1) a contract, (2) about which defendant knew, and (3) an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, (4) without justification, (5) which | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kanaga v. Gannett Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2021In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,31 the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment barred tortious interference claims and protected the right of 30 Id. at 254; Kanaga, 687 A.2d at 178 . 31 458 U.S. 886, 916-17 (1982). 15 individuals to engage in public protest for the purpose of influencing societal or governmental change, even if that protest activity causes economic harm.32 The tortious interference with contract claim additionally fails because Plaintiff does not allege in the Complaint that Defendant’s sole motivation in making the statements was to interfere with his con | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Aspen Advisors LLC v. United Artists Theatre Co.
green
1 sentence2019Ch. 2004), aff’d, 861 A.2d 1251 (Del. 2004) (dismissing the tortious interference with contract claim when the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); Goldman v. Pogo.com Inc., 2002 WL 1358760 , at *8 (Del. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Nelson v. Fleet National Bank
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 263-64 . 28 .In a footnote in plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, Kuroda argues that the Court cannot dismiss the tortious interference with contract claim because to do so would require the Court to conclude that Lichtenstein, Niedermeyer, and Walton were acting in the interests of Liberty Square and WGL Capital when they allegedly caused them to breach their contractual and fiduciary obligations to Kuroda. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.