RALPH RUHL, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN MITCHELL CAMPBELL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns whether a complaint stated a cause of action for inducement of breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding it lacked essential allegations.
No, the amended complaints failed to state a cause of action for inducement of breach of contract.
“The question presented on this appeal by plaintiff from an order of dismissal is whether a cause of action was stated.”
This quote frames the central issue of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff appealed an order dismissing his complaint, along with two amended complaints, for failure to state a cause of action. The defendant mov…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inducing Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The question presented on this appeal by plaintiff from an order of dismissal is whether a cause of action was stated. The initial complaint and two subsequent amended complaints were dismissed, on motion of defendant, on the ground that they failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. The action was one for damages for alleged inducement of breach of con*49tract. Without attempting recitation of the allegations, we deem it sufficient to state that in our view the trial judge was eminently correct in dismissing the second amended complaint. No contract' was shown other than an employment of unfixed and indefinite duration. It was not alleged that defendant had knowledge of the contract, if one existed. The acts attributed to the defendant were not shown to have proximately caused the loss or injury complained of. Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.