T. HARRIS YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

v.

MARQUETTE ELECTRONICS, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Scott D. Levine, M.D. v. Cent. Fla. Med. Affiliates, Inc., 72 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …siness acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1704, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); see also T. Harris Young & Assocs., Inc. v. Marquette Elec., Inc., 931 F. 2d 816, 823 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013, 112 S.Ct. 658, 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991); Austin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 903 F. 2d 1385, 1391 (11th Cir.1990). “Monopoly power under § 2 requires, of course, something greater than market power under § 1.” Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 480, 112 S.Ct…
• Pilkington v. United Airlines, 112 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the relationship. T. Harris Young & Assoc. v. Marquette Electronics, 931 F. 2d 816, 825-26 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013, 112 S.Ct. 658, 116 L.Ed.2d 749 (1991). Tortious interference with a contract and tortious interference with a business relationship are basically the same cause of action. Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1976)…
• Aquatherm Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 971 F. Supp. 1419 (M.D. Fla. 1997)