Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Long v. Mount Carmel Health Sys.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 27, 2017No. 16AP-511Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKlatt, J.

{¶ 34} I concur with all sections of the majority decision except for the section addressing Long's claim for intentional interference with contract. I respectfully dissent from that section because I believe the majority's analysis contravenes binding precedent from the Supreme Court of Ohio.

{¶ 35} Traditionally, to prove tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff merely had to establish intentional interference. 3 Dobbs, Hayden, & Bublick, The Law of Torts , Section 620, at 510 (2d Ed. 2011). The defendant, then, "could escape liability only by showing a privilege and shouldering the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kenty v. Transamerica Premium InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & HaddenOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Central Ohio Building & Construction Trades CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Juhasz v. Quik Shops, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. Walter v. Adt Security Sys., 06ap-115 (6-29-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

1 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