DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So. 2d 228.

113 citing documents.

  • Shekinah Glory Ministries v. One Way Deliverance Ministry La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    L. Treatise, Business Organizations § 33: 10 ( citing 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurnm ( La.
  • Virginia Anne Gerace Benoist v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Norma Ford Gerace, and Mary Kathryn Gerace Carleton La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    5 TORTIOUS OR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT In 9 to 5 Fashions, ( La.
  • Cp Marine Offloading, LLC v. Clarence Miller, Jr. Individually as Trustee of the Miller Family Trust and Maureen … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    CP Marine acknowledges that neither the law or jurisprudence in Louisiana recognize such an action against Mr. Miller individually or as Co- Trustee, but they assert that we should create such an action by simply extending the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding in 9 to 5 which allowed such an action against a corporate officer under a very restricted holding.
  • Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now, L.L.C., Tracy F. Robinson, Master Builders & Contractors, L.L.C., Richard J. Mithun, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
  • Musa v. Musa 267 So. 3d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney , , 234 (La.
  • Taxicab Insurance Store, LLC v. American Service Insurance Co. 224 So. 3d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    In 1989, the Louisiana Supreme Court for the first time recognized a very limited cause of action for tortious interference with contract in 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Jeff Mercer, LLC v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 222 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    In 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Coleman v. Querbes Co. No. 1 218 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    Specifically, they challenge the district court’s finding that under 9 to 5 (La.
  • Cedarholley Investment, LLC v. Pitre 209 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    6/22/12), ; see also 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Gulf Engineering Co. v. Kuhn 209 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    *1032 Plaintiffs now add Paragraph 35b to the allegations contained in its original Petition for Intentional Interference With Contracts, to read as follows: “In the alternative, Kuhn was therefore charged with the same duties, authority, and responsibilities as a ‘corporate official’ of Dow as defined in 9 to 5 Fashions, and which rendered her position completely indistinguishable from that of a corporate officer of Dow, which she effectively served as at all times pertinent hereto.” IV.
  • Russel Mier v. Gregory Russel Mier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    However, in 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Mier v. Mier 178 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    However, in 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a narroivly defined cause of action for the breach of duty by a corporate officer to refrain'from intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with a contractual relationship between the officer’s corporate employer and .the particular plaintiff.
  • Richard L. Reynolds v. Robert J. Bordelon III, Robert J. Bordelon Jr., Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Automobile Club … La. 2015
    762, 769 (1969) (Translation by Shael Herman) Thus, with regard to this final policy consideration before us, we find the legislation on fault and tort law in Louisiana has left to the courts the task of 23 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Larry Tolliver v. Bob Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced an end to Louisiana’s absolute bar to an action based on tortious interference with a contract.
  • Tolliver v. Broussard 155 So. 3d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced an end to Louisiana’s absolute bar to an action based on tortious interference with a contract.
  • Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board 133 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System 128 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    Interference With A Contract In 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Garland Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    9 E. Interference With A Contract In 9 to 5 Fashions, the court noted: For purposes of analysis, the action against a corporate officer for intentional and unjustified interference with contractual relations may be divided into separate elements: (1) the existence of a contract or a legally protected interest b
  • First Bank & Trust v. Treme 129 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • St. Landry Homestead Federal Savings Bank v. Hubert Vidrine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In its reasons for judgment, the trial court noted the supreme court‟s conclusion in 9 to 5 Fashions, that a plaintiff could maintain a cause of action against a corporate officer for tortious interference with a contract, but followed this circuit‟s decision in Technical Control Systems, Inc. v. Green, 01-0955 (La.App.
  • McCall v. Focus Worldwide Television Network, Inc. 119 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Beverly E. Ledet v. John J. Campo, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Before delving into the substance of her assignments of error, we observe that the trial court found that Ms. Ledet‟s claim for tortious interference with a contract was precluded under 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Derek Page v. H. Cookie Benson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Page v. Benson 101 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, that “the PPG case abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” Judge Saunders found “the only conclusion a reasonable juror could reach was that Bayer had reckless disregard for the potential ramifications to this state’s crawfish
  • Phillips v. G & H Seed Co. 86 So. 3d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Despite comments by Justice Calogero in his dissent that the majority was abandoning the rule, and the majority’s characterization in 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc., v. Spumey, of PPG as abrogating the per se exclusionary rule, Forcum-James has not been overruled.
  • Active Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dell, Inc. 73 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The seminal case in Louisiana jurisprudence concerning tortious interference is 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Patrick E. Phillips, Jr. v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Phillips v. G & H SEED CO. 68 So. 3d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, that “the PPG case abrogated] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” Judge Saunders found “the only conclusion a reasonable juror could reach was that Bayer had reckless disregard for the potential ramifications to this state’s crawfish ind
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
  • Phillips v. G & H SEED CO. 66 So. 3d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, that “the PPG case abrogated] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” Judge Saunders found “the only conclusion a reasonable juror could reach was that Bayer had reckless disregard for the potential ramifications to this state’s crawfish ind
  • ALLIED NORTH AMERICAN CORPORATION OF TEXAS v. Edgecomb 11 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Patrick E. Phillips, Jr. v. G & H Seed Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    “Highly unlikely” simply does not equal “must fail.” In fact, it is clear to me that “highly unlikely” can Page 1 of 3 comfortably coexist with “possible.” Our supreme court, only five years after the PPG Industries, Inc. case was rendered, in 9 to 5 Fashions, stated, that the PPG Industries, Inc. case does not stand for the absolute bar that the majority opinion proposes.
  • Novelaire Technologies, LLC v. Harrison 994 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    INTENTIONAL TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT In response to the Plaintiff's claim that Bucklin tortiously interfered with the contract between the Plaintiff and Harrison, the Defendants cite 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc., v. Spurney, and Inka's S'Coolwear, Inc. v. School Time, 97-2271 (La.App.
  • I-20 Corridor Prop., LLC v. Mahony Title Services, LLC 986 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Discussion In bringing this appeal, I-20 expressly rejects any assertion of a claim for tortious interference with contract because of the narrow allowance for such claim under the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in 9 to 5 Fashions
  • White v. Golden 982 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In 9 to 5 the Supreme Court held that an action against a corporate officer for intentional and unjustified interference with contractual relations requires proof of the following: 1.
  • Mor-Tem Risk Management Services, Inc. v. Shore 978 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In 9 to 5 the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a narrowly defined cause of action for the breach of duty by a corporate officer to refrain from intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with a contractual relationship between the officer’s corporate employer and the particular plaintiff.
  • Louisiana Ag Credit v. Livestock Producers 954 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    On the-with regard to the tortous [sic] interference, I think the 9 to 5 [] factors are so limited that they would not be applicable in this case and I would have granted summary judgment on that ground as well.
  • Vad Daotheuang v. El Paso Production Oil & Gas Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    9 to 5 Fashions, Bethea, 97-332
  • Daotheuang v. El Paso Production Oil & Gas 940 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    9 to 5 Fashions, Bethea, 97-332; .
  • Mendonca v. Tidewater Inc. 933 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    [1] After the parties had proceeded with discovery, Tidewater filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Mr. Mendonca lacked any evidence to establish the existence of a limited contract or a legally protected interest between him and his employer (a necessary element to maintain a claim for intentional interference with contract under the seminal case of 9 to 5 Fashions, ).
  • David Brown and Karen Brown v. Douglas Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Additionally, as we recognized in Spears, “in 9 to 5 Fashions Inc. v. 6 Spurney, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a narrowly defined cause of action for the breach of duty by a corporate officer to refrain from intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with a contractual relationship between the officer’s corporate employer and the particular plaintiff,” which cause of actio
  • Brown v. Romero 922 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Additionally, as we recognized in Spears, "in 9 to 5 the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a narrowly defined cause of action for the breach of duty by a corporate officer to refrain from intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with a contractual relationship between the officer's corporate employer and the particular plaintiff," which cause of action ha
  • Glod v. Baker 899 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the existence of a tort claim for intentional interference with contract in 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D. v. W. Gregory Baker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the existence of a tort claim for intentional interference with contract in 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Polar Bear Ice Co., Inc. v. Ann M. Williamson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    DISCUSSION THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM AGAINST WILLIAMSON Polar Bear contends that Williamson is liable because she tortiously interfered with the Lease Contract, citing in support of this claim the landmark case of 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Polar Bear Ice Co., Inc. v. Williamson 883 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    DISCUSSION THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM AGAINST WILLIAMSON Polar Bear contends that Williamson is liable because she tortiously interfered with the Lease Contract, citing in support of this claim the landmark case of 9 to 5 Fashions
  • Louisiana Claims Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. State Farm Insurance Co. 877 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • Alvis v. CIT GROUP EQUIPMENT FINANCING 867 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Randy Alvis and E.G. Alvis v. Cit Group Equipment Financing, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    10 See 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc., v. Spurney