 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital3/10/1999
andoned the practice of medicine in Deadwood and now practices in Spearfish.
[ ] On April 26, 1993, Hayes filed suit against Homestake alleging claims of intentional interference with the business relationships and contracts that existed between Hayes and BHMC. Hayes claimed damages to be a loss of earnings or profits, deprivation of the value of his ownership interest in BHMC and deprivation of the value of his equity. Homestake was involved in and apparently supported Hayes' termination from BHMC. Hayes was awarded $200,000.00 plus costs. Homestake paid the full amount of the judgment.
[ ] Hayes filed suit on August 4, 1993, against the defendants. Over Hayes' objection, the trial court bifurcated the legal and equitable claims and held a trial on the equitable issues on September 9, 1996. The court found Hayes and Hayes, P.C. were entitled to judgment in the amount of $102,765.95 for their interest in BHMC and its affiliated entities, but dismissed all other equitable claims.
[ ] The defendants then moved for summary judgment on Hayes' legal claims. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants. Hayes and Hayes, P.C. appeal raising the following issue:
[ ] Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment is well-settled. As we recently stated in Estate of Shuck v. Perkins County:
"Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Bego v. Gordon, 407 NW2d 801, 804 (SD 1987). All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 NW2d 783, 785 (SD 1990). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 SD 207, 212, 157 NW2d 19, 21 (1968)." 1998 SD 32, § 6, 577 NW2d 584, 586 (1998) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[ ] Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
[ ] Hayes claims the following counts were inappropriately dismissed by the trial court through summary judgment: 1) tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy; 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) breach of fiduciary duty; and 4) breach of contract. We will discuss each claim below.
[ ] a. Tortious interference with business relationships
[ ] i. Recognizing the tort
[ ] This Court recognized tortious interference with business relationships or expectancies in Tibke v. McDougall, 479 NW2d 898 (SD 1992). Landstrom v. Shaver, 1997 SD 25, § 73, 561 NW2d 1, 16. See also Communication Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Densmore, 1998 SD 87, 583 NW2d 125. "This cause of action is the recognition that valid business relationships and expectancies are entitled to protection from unjustified interference." Landstrom, 1997 SD 25 at § 81, 561 NW2d at 18. The tort also protects a party's interest in stable economic relationships. Maltz v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc., 992 FSupp 286, 312 (SDNY 1998). "For this tort to occur, the business relationship, if in existence, need not be cemented
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|