Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp.

Court of Appeals of New York
867 N.E.2d 381 (2007)


Facts

White Plains Coat & Apron Company, Inc. (White Plains) (plaintiff) had five-year exclusive service contracts with many of its clients. Cintas Corporation (Cintas) (defendant) was a competitor to White Plains and contracted with many of White Plains’s clients during the pendency of the five-year contracts, causing the clients to breach their contracts with White Plains. White Plains sued Cintas for tortious interference with contract in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Cintas claimed that it was unaware of any contractual relationships between White Plains and the clients. The district court granted Cintas’s motion for summary judgment. The court found, among other things, that Cintas had a legitimate interest as a competitor in soliciting business and making a profit, and thus was entitled to the economic interest defense to White Plains’s tortious interference claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the Court of Appeals of New York on whether a generalized economic interest in soliciting business is a defense to a claim of tortious interference with an existing contract for an alleged tortfeasor who has no previous economic relationship with the breaching party.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.