351 N.J. Super. 558 - DiMaria Const., Inc. v. Interarch’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Alaska v. United States · Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp. · City of Los Angeles v. Department of Transportation · North Carolina v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · Richard M. Perlman and Perlman Marketplace Investors v. Samuel Zell
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The tort of interference with a business relation or contract contains four elements: (1) a protected interest; (2) malice — that is, defendant's intentional interference without justification; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the interference caused the loss of the prospective gain; and (4) resulting damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendants acted with malice, that is intentionally and without justification or excuse ... from personal interest and thus stepped outside the scope of their agency ... by scapegoating DiMaria for the project delays.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if an employee or agent is acting on behalf of his or her employer or principal, then no action for tortious interference will lie.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.