Crandall Corp. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Gregory, Chief Justice:
This is an action for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. The trial judge granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
In Smith v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 270 S.C. 446, 242 S.E. (2d) 548 (1978), and Columbia Management Corp. v. Resort Properties, Inc., 279 S.C. 370, 307 S.E. (2d) 228 (1983), this Court refused to recognize a common law cause of action for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. We now join the vast majority of our sister jurisdictions in recognizing such a cause of action1 and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Duggin v. AdamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1987
- Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. IsomUtah Supreme Court · 1982
- Harsha v. State Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
- Blake v. LevySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Straube v. LarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Quality Auto Parts Co. v. Bluff City Buick Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1994
- Nelson v. MartinTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
- Callum v. CVS Health Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2015
- Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Columbia Outdoor Advertising, Inc. J. Willis Cantey the City of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Camp v. Springs Mortgage Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.