Opinion ID: 1125394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Tortious Interference With Respondent's Advantageous Business Relations (Present and Prospective)

Text: ¶ 32 The respondents appear to press a common-law claim for tortious interference with advantageous business relations. [58] We need not examine in detail the particular elements of this cause of action. If there is no element of unlawfulness in either the objective of the agreement or the means by which the purpose or objective is to be accomplished, there can be no actionable tort of interference with advantageous relations. [59] ¶ 33 A review of plaintiffs' complaints fails to disclose any allegations of unlawful means used by the defendants to interfere with the plaintiffs' prospective or present business relationships. Communications that fall within the state constitutional freedom of political speech and the right to petition for redress of grievances cannot be viewed as acts of tortious interference with a lawyer's advantageous business relations. Measuring this claim by the Conley v. Gibson test, [60] we conclude from the four corners of the second amended petition (viewed in conjunction with the physical attachments to the first amended petition) that the respondents cannot advance a claim for tortious interference with their advantageous relations which would entitle them to relief against the petitioners on this theory.