Machinery Corp. of Am. v. Insulated Building Systems, Inc.

Loudoun County Circuit Court

Machinery Corp. of Am. v. Insulated Building Systems, Inc.

22 Va. Cir. 363, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14

CourtLoudoun County Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1991

DocketCase No. (Law) 10915

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Va. Cir. 363 (Machinery Corp. of Am. v. Insulated Building Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Loudoun County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Machinery Corp. of Am. v. Insulated Building Systems, Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 363, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14 (Va. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE THOMAS D. HORNE

The Court will deny the Motion for Stay filed by the defendants. Such motion must fail for several reasons. First, as counsel for the plaintiff has correctly observed, it is not a precondition to recovery for tortious interference that the breach or termination was justified. Secondly, this case has been on the docket of the Court for nearly fourteen months. Only now is a Third Party Motion for Judgment being filed against "Wieser." It has been represented that discovery has been ongoing in this case despite other litigation in Austria and Michigan. Time standards have been developed in the Commonwealth mandating the completion of cases on the civil docket within two years. The addition of the third party defendant will naturally prolong these proceedings.

In order to bring this case to a conclusion and for the proper management of the docket of this Court, the Motion should be denied.

Lastly, counsel have alluded to the additional effort and possible duplication of discovery which will arise should the Motion not be granted. However, the Court finds no true discernable prejudice which has been claimed by defendants that will follow a denial of the Motion.

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

By JUDGE THOMAS D. HORNE

The Court will deny the Motion for Stay filed by the defendants. Such motion must fail for several reasons. First, as counsel for the plaintiff has correctly observed, it is not a precondition to recovery for tortious interference that the breach or termination was justified. Secondly, this case has been on the docket of the Court for nearly fourteen months. Only now is a Third Party Motion for Judgment being filed against "Wieser." It has been represented that discovery has been ongoing in this case despite other litigation in Austria and Michigan. Time standards have been developed in the Commonwealth mandating the completion of cases on the civil docket within two years. The addition of the third party defendant will naturally prolong these proceedings.

In order to bring this case to a conclusion and for the proper management of the docket of this Court, the Motion should be denied.

Lastly, counsel have alluded to the additional effort and possible duplication of discovery which will arise should the Motion not be granted. However, the Court finds no true discernable prejudice which has been claimed by defendants that will follow a denial of the Motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Va. Cir. 363, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machinery-corp-of-am-v-insulated-building-systems-inc-vaccloudoun-1991.