Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Balter v. Ethyl Corp.
452 U.S. 955
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1981-06-15
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- avoiding issue of private right of action under section 17(a) because plaintiffs’ “claims can be fully satisfied” under section 10(b); recognizing conflict in circuits on whether section 17(a) permits private actions
- private right of action under section 10(b) survives recent Supreme Court contractions of implied right of action doctrine
- “There is no such thing as a cause of action for interference which is only negligently or consequentially effected.”
- Court held that under Florida law, a party is allowed to interfere in another's business relationship where the party acts in furtherance of its own interests, such as to protect a contract.
- applying the limitations period of D.C.Code Ann. § 2-2413(e)
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Balter v. Ethyl Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 106 opinions
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.