 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
WILLEY v. RILEY12/20/1995
wever, in July 1990, Philip Morris hired another lobbyist to do the work that Willey was responsible for prior to Philip Morris' decision to sever all contacts with him.
Wilson also testified that but for the two telephone calls she received from Riley, she would have continued to work with Willey under the 1990 service agreement that Willey had entered into with Philip Morris. She also stated that she would have renewed Willey's lobbying contract at the end of 1990 but for Riley's telephone calls. According to Wilson, it is typical for Philip Morris to retain lobbyists or renew their contracts year after year, if possible.
In an amended petition filed in March 1991, plaintiff alleged that Riley or the law firm intentionally and wrongfully interfered with his prospective lobbying contract with Philip Morris.
B. Whether a jury question was generated on plaintiffs claim for intentional interference with prospective contract. The question is whether substantial evidence supports plaintiffs claim for intentional interference with plaintiff's prospective contract with Philip Morris. If the answer is yes, the district court correctly overruled defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff on this claim. If the answer is no, we must reverse on this issue.
1. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict standards. To determine whether substantial evidence supports plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with plaintiff's prospective contract with Philip Morris, we view the evidence in accordance with the same principles required for review by the district court. Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 682, 684 (Iowa 1990). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made, taking into consideration every legitimate inference that may fairly and reasonably be made. See Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(2); Smithway, 464 N.W.2d at 684; Konicek v. Loomis Bros., Inc., 457 N.W.2d 614, 617 (Iowa 1990). A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must stand on the grounds raised in the motion for directed verdict. Faught v. Budlong, 540 N.W.2d 33, 35 (Iowa 1995); Valadez v. City of Des Moines, 324 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1982).
Our only inquiry in assessing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is sufficient evidence to justify submitting the case to the jury. Faught 540 N.W.2d at 35; Smithway, 464 N.W.2d at 684. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied if there is substantial evidence to support each element of the plaintiff's claims. Faught, 540 N.W.2d at 35; Slocum v. Hammond, 346 N.W.2d 485, 494 (Iowa 1984). A plaintiff must have presented more than a mere scintilla of evidence to avoid a defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Petersen v. Farmers Casualty Co., 226 N.W.2d 226, 232 (Iowa 1975). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would find the evidence presented adequate to reach the same findings. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Voeltz, 431 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 1988); Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Iowa 1990).
2. Substantial evidence inquiry. Defendants contend that plaintiff did not present substantial evidence to support each element of his intentional interference with a prospective contract claim. Because we conclude plaintiff Willey did not present at least substantial evidence that Riley's two telephone calls to Philip Morris were made for the predominant purpose to financially injure or destroy Willey, we reverse the district court's judgment on this issue.
Interference with a prospective business contract is an intentional tort which [541 NW2d Page 527]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|