Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 584

529US2

Unit: $U51

[09-26-01 10:31:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 494 (2000)

509

Stevens, J., dissenting

there was no misconduct on the part of [the defendants]”);
Lesperance v. North American Aviation, Inc., 217 Cal. App.
2d 336, 346, 31 Cal. Rptr. 873, 878 (1963) (“[E]mployer . . .
had the right (so far as appears) to terminate [plaintiff ’s]
services without committing a civil wrong”); Chapman v.
Pollock, 148 F. Supp. 769, 772 (WD Mo. 1957) (“The fatal
defect in plaintiff ’s action for conspiracy is that the act com-
mitted by defendants . . . was lawful in its nature, . . . and
violated no right of plaintiff ”); Olmsted, Inc. v. Maryland
Casualty Co., 218 Iowa 997, 1003, 253 N. W. 804, 807 (1934)
(“A conspiracy is not established by the record. There is
no direct evidence that such a conspiracy was formed. A
conspiracy cannot be inferred from the record, because noth-
ing was done by the alleged conspirators which was unlaw-
ful”); Royster v. Baker, 365 S. W. 2d 496, 500 (Mo. 1963)
(“[T]he petition does no more than allege that the defendants
agreed, or if the term is preferred, conspired, to accomplish
lawful acts in a lawful manner”).

Three more cases refused to impose liability because con-
dition (b) was missing; that is, because the plaintiff did not
actually suffer any harm. See Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich.
App. 271, 280–282, 167 N. W. 2d 841, 847–848 (1969) (Plaintiff
waived any cause of action for conspiracy to invade his pri-
vacy by disclosing private information); J. & C. Ornamental
Iron Co. v. Watkins, 114 Ga. App. 688, 691–692, 152 S. E. 2d
613, 615 (1966) (“Plaintiff does not allege that it . . . was
injured in any way. . . . [T]he petition contains no allegations
of fact showing that plaintiff was injured in any way . . . .
Thus the petition fails to state a cause of action upon any
theory”); Adler v. Fenton, 24 How. 407, 411–413 (1861). The
remaining three cases found that the plaintiff did state a
cause of action and therefore the court did not refuse to im-
pose liability on that ground. See Cohen v. Bowdoin, 288
A. 2d 106, 110 (Me. 1972) (“We decide that the complaint
states a claim upon which relief can be granted”); Middlesex
Concrete Products & Excavating Corp. v. Carteret Indus.