The complaint fails to state a cause of action as against Sprinkle for tortious interference with contract, because there is no allegation that Sprinkle personally benefitted from the corporations' alleged breach of contract; the only benefit he is alleged to have received is his salary from the corporations (see G.D. Searle & Co. v Medicore Communications, Inc.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.