Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Creative Risk Controls, Inc. v. Brechtel 847 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Technical Control Systems, Inc. v. Green 809 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
In 9 to 5 Fashions, the supreme court, for the first time, allowed a cause of action against a corporate officer to be maintained for tortious interference with contract.
Precision, Inc. v. North Louisiana Regional Hospital, Inc. 802 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
The court determined that the plaintiff could not establish factual support for its claim to the partnership interest as a withdrawing partner, as required by 9 to 5
Sun Drilling Products Corp. v. Rayborn 798 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
ACMG of Louisiana, Inc. v. Jones 796 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In 9 to 5 Fashions, (" Spurney "), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the possibility of a narrowly drawn action for intentional interference with contractual rights and indicated that it would proceed with caution in expanding that cause of action.
Spears v. American Legion Hosp. 780 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
However, 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.
Guillory v. Dillard's Dept. Store, Inc. 777 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
9 to 5 Fashions, Bethea, 97-332; .
Healthcare Mgmt. v. Vantage Healthplan 748 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
However, 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.
THORNTON EX REL. LANECO CONST. v. Lanehart 723 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Thornton ex rel. Laneco Construction Systems, Inc. v. Lanehart 723 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Krebs v. Mull 727 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
From this judgment, plaintiff appeals, averring that the trial court erred in maintaining the exception where the petition sets forth (1) a cause of action for tortious interference with contract under the doctrine of 9 to 5 Fashions, and (2) a cause of action for unjust enrichment.
Grocery Supply v. Winterton Food Stores 722 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
In 9 to 5 the supreme court recognized a limited and narrowly defined action for the breach of a corporate officer's duty to refrain from the intentional and unjustified interference with the contractual relationship between his corporate employer and a third person.
Inka's S'Coolwear, Inc. v. School Time, LLC 725 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
C. Tortious Interference with Contract In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the possibility of a narrowly drawn action for intentional interference with contractual rights and indicated that it would proceed with caution in expanding that cause of action.
Fitzgerald v. Tucker 715 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Kite v. Gus Kaplan, Inc. 708 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
In 9 to 5 Fashions, for the first time, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that a corporate officer had a duty “to refrain from intentional and unjustified interference with the contractual relations between his employer and a third person” and established the elements of proof for this tort as follows: For purposes o
Guilbeaux v. Times of Acadiana, Inc. 693 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
In this appeal, Mr. Guilbeaux alleges that the trial court incorrectly sustained exceptions of no cause of action for negligent interference with a business relation because the facts in this case fall squarely within the parameters set forth in 9 to 5 Fashions
Cowen v. Steiner 689 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Ms. Cowen contended that by acting in such a prohibited manner, Dr. Steiner breached his duty to refrain form intentional, unjustified and malicious interference with the contractual relationship between the hospital and Ms. Cowen as per 9 to 5 Fashions, La.Civ.Code art. 2315; and all other applicable jurisprudence and statutes.
Communication & Info. v. Expressions 675 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
CIRCA cites 9 to 5 Fashions, and its progeny and refers generally to the numerous documents contained in the record.
Duplessis v. Warren Petroleum, Inc. 672 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
The theory of recovery for intentional interference with contract has not been expanded beyond the limited facts of 9 to 5 Fashions, where a plaintiff sued a corporate officer; the broad common law action has not been adopted.
MD Care, Inc. v. Angelo 672 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
9 to 5 Fashions, recognized a narrowly defined cause of action for intentional interference with a contract and overruled jurisprudence which barred "absolutely any action based on a tortious interference with a contract" to the extent that jurisprudence conflicted with 9 to 5 Fashions.
Pittman v. Beebe 670 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In well-written reasons for judgment the trial court concluded that the Pittmans did not have a contract or a legally protected interest with Old Forest Manor to purchase its assets, and that, accordingly, there could not be a tortious interference with a contract, as explained by the supreme court in 9 to 5 Fashions
Lilawanti Enterprises, Inc. v. Walden Book Co. 670 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Guilbeaux v. Times of Acadiana, Inc. 661 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Yoes v. Shell Oil Co. 657 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
5th Cir. 3/14/90); , this court held that plaintiff may have raised sufficient facts to give rise to a cause of action for intentional interference with contract against Shell under 9 to 5 Fashions, and remanded to allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his petition, but only as to Shell.
A & W Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Berg Mechanical, Inc. 653 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Further, the court rejected A & W's intentional interference with contract claim against River City as insufficient under 9 to 5 Fashions
Hemmans v. State Farm Ins. Co. 653 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Scamardo v. Dunaway 650 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
White v. White 641 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In refusing to expand the tort of intentional interference with a contract beyond the bounds established by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 9 to 5 Fashions, the trial judge stated: "While the court did not specifically prohibit the application of the tortious interference with contract cause of action to other situations or other business associations such as partnerships, it is extremely doubtful that it would allow such an action between individuals."
Adams v. Deaton, Inc. 637 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
See 9 to 5 Fashions, Neel v. Citrus Lands of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Durand v. McGaw 635 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
ACCREDITED SUR. & CAS. v. McElveen 631 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
9 to 5 Fashions, at 234.
Neel v. Citrus Lands of Louisiana, Inc. 629 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
[1] *1301 The trial court's reading of 9 to 5 Fashions, (La.
Gulf South Business Systems & Consultants, Inc. v. State ex rel. Department of Environmental Quality 625 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the possibility of a narrowly drawn action for intentional interference with contractual rights and indicated that it would proceed -with caution in expanding that cause of action.
WKG-TV VIDEO ELECTRONIC COL., INC. v. Reynolds 618 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. 618 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
The trial judge directed the plaintiffs in reconvention to amend their pleadings within fifteen (15) days to state a cause of action for tortious interference with contract as defined in 9 to 5 Fashions, and to state a cause of action for damages under LSA-R.S.
Yarbrough v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Jackson 616 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Bruner argued the allegation was necessary to state a cause of action against a corporate officer for intentional interference with contractual relations between the corporation and a third person under 9 to 5 Fashions
First Downtown Dev. v. Cimochowski 613 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
DISCUSSION Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court "...
Carter v. Smith 607 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Hampton v. Live Oak Builders, Inc. 608 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
As established by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 9 to 5 Fashions, the elements of the cause of action are: 1) the existence of a contract or a legally protected interest between the plaintiff and a corporation; 2) a corporate officer's knowledge of the contract; 3) the officer's intentional inducement or causation of the corporation to breach the contract or his intentiona
Hawthorn, Waymouth & Carroll v. Johnson 611 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
23:921), rev'd in part by 9 to 5 (La.App.
Greene v. Roy 604 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
A recent Louisiana Supreme Court case, 9 To 5 Fashions, recognized a corporate officer's duty to refrain from intentional and unjustified interference with the contractual relation between his employer and a third person.
Green v. Beauregard Federal Savings Bank 604 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
The briefs of both parties contain discussion by the Louisiana Supreme Court case of 9 to 5 Fashions, concerning the action for intentional interference with contractual relationship.
Colbert v. BF Carvin Const. Co. 600 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Korson v. Independence Mall I, Ltd. 595 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
9 to 5 Fashions, (emphasis supplied).
Everything on Wheels Subaru v. Subaru South 593 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
B. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT In 9 to 5 Fashions, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the existence of the cause of action of tortious interference with a contract under very limited circumstances.
Nehrenz v. Dunn 593 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
However, plaintiff asserts that Louisiana recognizes the intentional interference with contractual relations between two other persons, citing 9 to 5 Fashions
Constance v. Jules Albert Const., Inc. 591 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
According to plaintiff, actions for "tortious interference with contractual relations" were recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the landmark case of 9 to 5 Fashions
Lewis v. Aluminum Co. of America 588 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
art. 2315; 9 to 5 Fashions
Lynn v. Berg Mechanical, Inc. 582 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS Lynn asserts that the allegations of intentional interference in his first supplemental and amended petition set forth a cause of action under 9 to 5 Fashions
Chaffin v. Chambers 577 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
CAUSE OF ACTION The plaintiff asserts that a "petition which alleges the intentional inducement of a breach of contract by a person not a party to the contract, states a cause of action under Article 2315, Louisiana Civil Code", citing 9 to 5 Fashions