Legal Opinion
Stehno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided February 14, 2006No. SC 87023PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge.
Sprint Spectrum, L.P., appeals a judgment granting John Stehno a new trial on his claim of tortious interference with a business expectancy. Sprint asserts that Stehno did not make a submissible case of tortious interference because he failed to prove: (1) he had a valid, reasonable business expectancy or (2) there was an absence of justification for Sprint’s actions. This Court agrees and reverses the judgment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
As this appeal involves the sufficiency of evidence, a detailed explanation of the facts is necessary. Stehno was an employee of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nazeri v. Missouri Valley CollegeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Community Title Co. v. Roosevelt Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
- Misischia v. St. John's Mercy Medical CenterMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
- Doe v. TCI CablevisionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
- Bell v. May Department Stores Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Cole v. Homier Distributing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Western Blue Print Co. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Farrow v. Saint Francis Medical CenterSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
- Edgerton v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
- Professional Massage Training Center, Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools & CollegesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.