Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the Restatement of Torts, 2d.”). In Schmitz v. Smentowski, 109 N.M. 386, 785 P.2d 726 (1990), the Supreme Court of New Mexico stated: “We have also been very willing to adopt the view of the Restatement of Torts to assist our development of new tort areas.” 109 N.M. at 393, 785 P.2d at 736. The Supreme Court of New Mexico explained: Accordingly, New Mexico has recognized as tortious inducing a breach of contract, adopting the view promulgated in Restatement of Torts § 766 (1939). Wolf v. Perry, 65 N.M. 457, 461, 339 P.2d 679, 681 (1959)(requiring that “one who, without justification or privilege to do so, induces a third person not to perform a contract with another, is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby”); see also Williams v. Ashcraft, 72 N.M. 120, 381 P.2d 55 (1963)(<HOLDING>). We have adopted the cause of action of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice (B) recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage (C) recognizing tort of wrongful discharge (D) recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations (E) holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice
Output (English): holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice