Legal Opinion

Reeves v. Hanlon

California Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 2004No. S114811PublishedCited by 122 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

The primary issue presented is whether a defendant may be held liable under an intentional interference theory for having induced an at-will employee to quit working for the plaintiff. Because an interference as such is primarily an interference with the future relation between the plaintiff and the at-will employee, we hold that inducing the termination of an at-will employment relation may be actionable under the standard applicable to claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Accordingly, to recover for a defendant’s interference with an…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
  3. MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  4. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co.California Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by122 opinions

  1. Diaz v. GatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  2. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Oakland Raiders v. National Football LeagueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Das v. Bank of America, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005

117 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