Voyles v. Sasser, 472 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Voyles v. Sasser, 472 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“roof that was no stranger to the business relations at issue is fatal to claim of tortious interference with business relations”
27 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mulligan v. Brunswick Memorial Hospital Authority (gactapp, 2003-11-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mulligan v. Brunswick Memorial Hospital Authority (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
roof that was no stranger to the business relations at issue is fatal to claim of tortious interference with business relations
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF GEORGIA v. DOVETEL COMMUNICATION, LLC
Ga. · 2025 · confidence medium
See also, e.g., Lederle v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 440, 441 (1927); Blackstock v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., 94 Ga. App. 313, 314 (1956); Ely v. Stratoflex, Inc., 132 Ga. App. 569, 571 (1974); At- lanta Dairies Co-Op v. Grindle, 182 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1987); Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga. App. 305, 305 (1996); Jones v. Destiny Indus., 226 Ga. App. 6, 8 (1997); Pickle Logging, Inc. v. Ga. Pac.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrick v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASS'N
N.D. Ga. · 2006 · confidence medium
Proof that a defendant was not a stranger “to the business relations at issue is fatal to [a plaintiffs] claim of tortious interference with business relations.” Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga.App. 305, 306 , 472 S.E.2d 80, 82 (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mariner Healthcare, Inc. v. Foster
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co. &c., 276 Ga.App. 747, 749 (1) ( 624 SE2d 218 ) (2005). 29 See Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga.App. 305, 306 (2) ( 472 SE2d 80 ) (1996) (promissory estoppel does not apply to a promise to continue to do business with company indefinitely); Loy’s Office Supplies v. Steelcase, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 331 SE2d 75 ) (1985) (no promissory estoppel where promise was made to continue business relationship for an indefinite period of time). 30 See Reuben v. First Nat.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. City of Atlanta (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co. v. McLane, 269 Ga. 604, 609-610 (2) ( 503 SE2d 278 ) (1998). 6 Disaster Svcs. v. ERC Partnership, 228 Ga. App. 739, 741 ( 492 SE2d 526 ) (1997). 7 See id. 8 (Citation omitted.) McLane, supra, 269 Ga. at 610 . 9 Id. at 609, n. 2 . 10 Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga. App. 305, 306 (3) ( 472 SE2d 80 ) (1996). 11 Physician Specialists in Anesthesia, P. C. v. MacNeill, 246 Ga. App. 398, 406 (4) ( 539 SE2d 216 ) (2000); Voyles, supra at 306 (3) (proof that defendant was no stranger to the business relations at issue is fatal to a tortious interference claim).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Atlanta Market Center Management Co. v. McLane (2×)
Ga. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga. App. 305 ( 472 SE2d 80 ) (1996); McDaniel v. Green, 156 Ga. App. 549 ( 275 SE2d 124 ) (1980); Restatement, Second, Torts, § 766. 1 After proving the existence of a contract, it is essential to a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations that the plaintiff establish that the defendant is a “third party,” i.e., a “stranger” to the contract with which the defendant allegedly interfered.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coffee v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Atakpa v. Perimeter OB-GYN Assocs., 912 F.Supp. 1566, 1579 (N.D.Ga.1994); see also Voyles v. Sasser, 221 Ga.App. 305, 305 , 472 S.E.2d 80 (1996).
VOYLES Et Al.
v.
SASSER Et Al.
A96A0254.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 19, 1996.
472 S.E.2d 80
Downey & Cleveland, Joseph C. Parker, William C. Anderson, for appellants., Gregg Loomis, for appellees.
Harold R. Banke.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 73%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
Judge Harold R. Banke.

Pam Sasser and her business, Regal Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Regal”), sued C. E. Voyles, J. B. Voyles, W. F. Voyles (collectively “Voyles”), and Edward Bell White for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and tortious interference with contract and business relations. We granted White’s and the Voyles’ application for interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment.

To prevail on summary judgment, the moving party must show that no genuine issues of material fact remain to be tried and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, warrant summary judgment as a matter of law. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991). Viewed in that light, the record shows that this action arose after Sasser purchased Regal from the Voyles, who also owned and operated Ed Voyles Oldsmobile, Inc. and Ed Voyles Companies. As part of the sales transaction, the parties agreed that Regal would continue to service the Voyles’ insurance needs as it had prior to the sale. Several years later, Ed Voyles Companies began handling its insurance needs in-house instead of through Regal. Sasser and Regal then commenced this action. Held'.

1. The trial court erred in denying the Voyles’ motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because the provision at issue was for an indefinite period and was thus terminable at either party’s will. Morris v. Park Newspapers &c., 149 Ga. App. 674, 675 (1) (255 SE2d 131) (1979); see Loy’s Office Supplies v. Steelcase, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 701, 702 (331 SE2d 75) (1985). In fact, Sasser acknowledged the indefinite nature of the agreement in her deposition, admitting that the parties never discussed its duration and that nothing lasts forever.

2. The Voyles were also entitled to summary judgment because the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application to this case. “ £[E]stoppel applies to representations of past or present facts and[*306] not to promises concerning the future, especially where those promises concern unenforceably vague future acts.’ [Cit.]” Bridges v. Reliance Trust Co., 205 Ga. App. 400, 403 (2) (422 SE2d 277) (1992); see Loy’s, 174 Ga. App. at 702. Moreover, even if the doctrine had some application to these facts, the promise at issue was not sufficiently definite in time to justify Sasser’s reliance on it. See Fidelity & Deposit &c. v. West Point Constr. Co., 178 Ga. App. 578, 580 (344 SE2d 268) (1986).

Decided April 19, 1996 Reconsideration denied May 7, 1996 Downey & Cleveland, Joseph C. Parker, William C. Anderson, for appellants. Gregg Loomis, for appellees.

3. No issues remain to be tried on the tortious interference with contract or business relation claims against White. In the absence of a valid and enforceable contract, summary judgment is appropriate. Hylton v. American Assn. for Vocational Instructional Materials, 214 Ga. App. 635, 638 (2) (488 SE2d 741) (1994); Stahl Headers, Inc. v. MacDonald, 214 Ga. App. 323, 324 (447 SE2d 320) (1994). Proof that White was no stranger to the business relations at issue is fatal to Sasser’s claim of tortious interference with business relations. Renden, Inc. v. Liberty Real Estate &c., 213 Ga. App. 333, 336 (2) (b) (444 SE2d 814) (1994). Under these circumstances, the Voyles and White were entitled to summary judgment.

Judgment reversed.

Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.