Masciarelli v. J.D. Aiken Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Masciarelli v. J.D. Aiken Co.

770 So. 2d 726, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13938, 2000 WL 1630142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2280

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 770 So. 2d 726 (Masciarelli v. J.D. Aiken Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masciarelli v. J.D. Aiken Co., 770 So. 2d 726, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13938, 2000 WL 1630142 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(stating that “a cause of action for tortious interference does not exist against one who is himself a party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with”); see also Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(stating with respect to a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship that “[f]or the interference to be unjustified, the interfering defendant must be a third party, a stranger to the business relationship”); O.E. Smith’s Sons, Inc. v. George, 545 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(citing Sloan v. Sax, 505 So.2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)).

POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(stating that “a cause of action for tortious interference does not exist against one who is himself a party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with”); see also Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(stating with respect to a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship that “[f]or the interference to be unjustified, the interfering defendant must be a third party, a stranger to the business relationship”); O.E. Smith’s Sons, Inc. v. George, 545 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(citing Sloan v. Sax, 505 So.2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)).

POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 726, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13938, 2000 WL 1630142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masciarelli-v-jd-aiken-co-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack