finding that “to hold that Ralph could have entered into an illegal agreement with the legal entity of which he was sole stockholder, director and officer would be without legal or rational basis. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered as to Ralph and Pike Coal on the conspiracy charge.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “to hold that Ralph could have entered into an illegal agreement with the legal entity of which he was sole stockholder, director and officer would be without legal or rational basis. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered as to Ralph and Pike Coal on the conspiracy charge.”
- holding citizen-taxpayer had standing where case was of public significance and plaintiff was " ‘appropriate’ party to bring the case”
- collecting Pennsylvania cases that have examined alleged interferences with both existing contracts and prospective business relations but denying relief on both claims in dispute concerning whether defendants interfered with plaintiffs’ leasehold interest in, and ongoing attempts to purchase, property from owners
- finding that there was not a prospective business relationship where evidence showed that the parties had renewed a year-to-year lease for mineral rights for ten consecutive years
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent; summary judgment should not have been granted. There are genuine issues of fact which should be resolved by a jury.