Legal Opinion

Ran Corp. v. Hudesman

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1991No. S-3639PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

RAN Corporation contracted with a lessee for the assignment of a lease, conditional on the approval of the lessor. David Hudesman, the lessor, refused to consent to the assignment because Hudesman had identified another tenant who offered greater economic benefit. RAN sued, alleging, inter alia, intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The superior court found that RAN had not established a pri-ma facie case for either tort, and that, in any event, Hudesman was privileged to interfere with…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Straube v. LarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  4. O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Oaksmith v. BrusichAlaska Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Casco Marina Development, L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land AgencyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. C.R. Eng. v. Swift Transp. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Kutcher v. ZimmermanHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2016
  5. C.R. England v. Swift TransportationUtah Supreme Court · 2019

12 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