Faucette v. Chantos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]o recover for tortious interference with a prospective business relation, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was independently tortious or wrongful. By independently tortious we do not mean that the plaintiff must be able to prove an independent tort. Rather, we mean only that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct would be actionable under a recognized tort. Thus, for example, a plaintiff may recover for tortious interference from a defendant who makes fraudulent statements about the plaintiff to a third person without proving that the third person was actually defrauded.... Likewise, a plaintiff may recover for tortious interference from a defendant who threatens a person with physical harm if he does business with the plaintiff. The plaintiff need prove only that the defendant’s conduct toward the prospective customer would constitute assault. Also, a plaintiff could recover for tortious interference by showing an illegal boycott, although a plaintiff could not recover against a defendant whose persuasion of others not to deal with the plaintiff was lawful. Conduct that is merely "sharp” or unfair is not actionable and cannot be the basis for an action for tor-tious interference with prospective relations”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turner Industries Group, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450 · Turner Industries Group, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450

2. “(1) a reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a contractual relationship; (2) an “independently tortious or unlawful” act by the defendant' that prevented the relationship from occurring; (3) the defendant did such act with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew that the interference was certain or substantially certain, to occur as-a result of his conduct; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm or damage as a result of the defendant’s interference.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Super Starr International, LLC v. Fresh Tex Produce, LLC · 629 F. App'x 673 - Cardiovascular Support Perfusion Reliance Network, LLC v. SpecialtyCare, Inc.