Legal Opinion
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided August 29, 1989PublishedCited by 660 opinions
1Per curiam
We granted certification, 108 N.J. 200 (1987), to review the Appellate Division’s determination that plaintiffs’ complaint did not state a cause of action. The complaint seeks recovery of damages for intentional interference with prospective economic relations and for defamation. (“Intentional interference with prospective economic relations” is used in this opinion interchangeably with such expressions as “tortious interference with prospective economic advantage” or “economic benefit,” “intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship,” and the like.)
Plaintiff Printing…
2Cases cited104 opinions
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. HeppsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Walker v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by660 opinions
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2002
- Elliot Fineman the Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Lino Celle and Radio Mindanao Network Usa, Inc. v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc. And Libertito PelayoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Banco Popular North America v. GandiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
655 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.