CHARLES L. MAJOR, APPELLANT,

v.

MARY C. MAJOR, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• McCURDY v. J.C. Collis & Exxon Corp., 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
  …a party tor-tiously interferes with a contract terminable at will. Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206, 1 So. 934 (1897); Mays v. Stratton, 183 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1966); Florida Power & Light Company v. Fleitas, 488 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Unistar Corporation v. Child, 415 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White & White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., 384 So. 2d 303, 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). A qualified privilege to in…
• Ragsdale v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Miami, 770 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
  …gh the first count is entitled “negligence,” Mt. Sinai correctly argues that it is in fact a count for negligent interference with an advantageous business relationship, a tort not recognized in Florida. See Florida Power & Light Company v. Fleitas, 488 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In Fleitas, this Court looked beyond the title of a particular count and concluded that “the plaintiffs action ... was nothing more than a claim for negligent interference with a contractual or advantageous relationship with his…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Smith v. Emery AIR Freight Corp., 512 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …a specific person. Its motive and intent was to prevent future altercations in the workplace. A business has the right to bar a person from its premises when such action is based on a founded safety concern. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fleitas, 488 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (FPL had privilege to bar plaintiff from premises of nuclear power plant based on founded suspicion of illegal drug use). Emery’s action was justified under the circumstances and its motion for a directed verdict should have been…