Legal Opinion
Smith v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided March 2, 1978No. 20626PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Littlejohn, Justice.
This appeal is from the order of the lower court sustaining the defendants’ three separate demurrers to the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Permission to replead was not granted.
The plaintiff, Patricia Smith (Smith), commenced this action against the defendants Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (HRW), Sales Consultants of Columbia, Inc. (Employment Agency), and Ken Crabb (Crabb), alleging a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective advantage. The lower court recognized the viability…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chitwood v. McMillanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1940
- Keels v. PowellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- Crowe v. Domestic Loans, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1963
- Baldwin v. SandersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Crandall Corp. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Drs. Steuer & Latham, P.A. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1987
- Blanton Enterprises, Inc. v. Burger King Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1988
- Columbia Management Corp. v. Resort Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
- Wilkie v. Home Security Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.