Legal Opinion

Crandall Corp. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 27, 1990No. 23258PublishedCited by 43 opinions

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

  1. Duggin v. AdamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1987
  2. Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. IsomUtah Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Harsha v. State Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  4. Blake v. LevySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  5. Straube v. LarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Quality Auto Parts Co. v. Bluff City Buick Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Nelson v. MartinTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Callum v. CVS Health Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2015
  4. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Columbia Outdoor Advertising, Inc. J. Willis Cantey the City of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
  5. Camp v. Springs Mortgage Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993

38 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