Anil Vazirani v. Mark Heitz
Case Details
- Citation
- 741 F.3d 1104, 2013 WL 6698125, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25347
- Judge(s)
- Hartz, Baldock, Ebel
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from district court summary judgment
- State
- Kansas
- Circuit
- Tenth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants, ruling that an officer of a company could be liable for tortious interference with a contract only if motivated by solely personal interests.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.