Legal Opinion

Mannex Corp. v. Bruns

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 16, 2012No. 090201607; A145767PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action for intentional interference with economic relations (HER) and defamation.1 The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that, with respect to each claim, plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to an essential element: with respect to HER, that defendant was a “third party” who interfered with one of plaintiffs economic relationships; and with respect to defamation, that defendant’s defamatory statements were the legal cause of injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals from the subsequently…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. McGanty v. StaudenrausOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Chesterman v. BarmonOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Wallulis v. DymowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Wattenburg v. United Medical Laboratories, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Hinkle v. AlexanderOregon Supreme Court · 1966

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Neumann v. LilesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. Sage Redwind v. Western Union, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  3. Witt Co. v. RISO, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2013
  4. Corvallis Hospitality, LLC v. Wilmington Trust, National AssociationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2023
  5. Dr. Erik Natkin, DO PC v. American Osteopathic AssociationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2024

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API