Legal Opinion

Davenport v. Epperly

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1987No. 87-56PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROWN, Chief Justice.

Appellant Davenport contends that ap-pellees Epperly and Cochrane intentionally interfered with his employment contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and appellant appeals.

Appellant states one issue:

“Are co-employees subject to liability for intentional interference with an employment contract between an employee and their common employer?”

Answering the issue posed by appellant in the affirmative would not dispose of this case. He argues principles other than those suggested by his statement of the issue.

Appellees present the issues as:

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cordova v. GosarWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  2. ABC Builders, Inc. v. PhillipsWyoming Supreme Court · 1981
  3. England v. SimmonsWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  4. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. HolsoWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Toltec Watershed Improvement District v. JohnstonWyoming Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Const., Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Stratman v. Admiral Beverage Corp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Hatch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Allmaras v. MudgeWyoming Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Case v. GossWyoming Supreme Court · 1989

57 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