Harrison v. NetCentric Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 48 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Blackstone v. Cashman (2007), Kelley v. LaForce (2002)
28 federal appellate · 48 district · 95 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Edgar v. Mite Corp. · Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. · Atherton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc. · Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plaintiff must prove that (1) he had a contract with a third party; (2) the defendant knowingly interfered with that contract [by inhibiting the third party’s or the plaintiffs performance thereof, depending on the theory]; (3) the defendant’s interference, in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means; and (4) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s actions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Id. at 855 . Suzuki attempts to draw a parallel between his circumstances and the circumstances of the Cataldo plaintiff. He says that like the latter's interest in future projects, the equity incentives described in the 2010 offer letter induced his continued efforts toward regulatory approval — an endeavor that had gone beyond the stage of a mere hope and to which he had devoted a significant amount of work. Suzuki's reliance on Cataldo is misplaced. To begin, we think it plain that the SJC would cabin Cataldo's reach. In its only decision addressing the case, the SJC deemed Cataldo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In an effort to clarify the law in this area, we note that in United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 815-817 (1990), we stated that we were ‘abandonfing] the word malicious in the description’ of the elements of a tortious interference claim, but we continued to define the improper interference required before a corporate officer could be hable in terms of ‘actual malice.’ . . . There is no practical difference, however, between ‘actual malice’ and improper motives and means for purposes of this tort” (emphasis added). (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.