C.R. Eng. v. Swift Transp. Co.

Chief Justice Durrant, opinion of the Court:

*344Introduction

¶1 In this case1 we are asked to interpret, and ultimately overturn, a rule we established in St. Benedict's Development Co. v. St. Benedict's Hospital .2 In St. Benedict's we held that to prevail on a claim for intentional interference with contract, the plaintiff must show that the defendant interfered through "improper means."3 C.R. England, Inc. (England) argues that St. Benedict's was wrongly decided and should, therefore, be overruled.

¶2 In so arguing, England asserts that the factors for overruling precedent we established in…