Herzman v. Ainsworth

607 P.2d 744, 43 Or. App. 975, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3485
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedDecember 31, 1979
DocketNo. 78-797-L-3, CA 13717
StatusPublished

This text of 607 P.2d 744 (Herzman v. Ainsworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herzman v. Ainsworth, 607 P.2d 744, 43 Or. App. 975, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3485 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

JOSEPH, P.J.

This is a tort action to recover damages for tortious interference with the business relations of plaintiff and another person. The trial court ruled that there was no evidence of any damage to plaintiff and directed a verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment. His sole assignment of error is that the trial court’s directing a verdict was improper.

We have reviewed the record and agree that plaintiff failed to prove damages and therefore failed to prove all of the elements of the tort as most recently delineated in Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 Or 201, 582 P2d 1365 (1977).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance
582 P.2d 1365 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
607 P.2d 744, 43 Or. App. 975, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herzman-v-ainsworth-orctapp-1979.