Michigan Avenue National Bank v. State Farm Insurance Companies
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Romiti
The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendants were guilty of certain actions which constituted interference with prospective business advantage. Certain of the defendants (the appellees here) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 48 of the Civil Practice Act (111. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 48). In the reply brief (not the motion itself) they contended they could not be held liable as they were competitors of plaintiff. The trial court granted the motion, dismissed the appellees as defendants and ruled pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (111. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1975
- Lowell v. Mother's Cake & Cookie Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Cain v. American National Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1973
- Bau v. SobutAppellate Court of Illinois · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- DP-Tek, Inc. v. AT & T Global Information Solutions Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Smith-Shrader Co. v. SmithAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985
- Prudential Insurance Co. v. Van MatreAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
- Hill v. ButlerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1982
- Rowan v. NovotnyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.