Where an oil producer challenged a jury verdict for a independent trucking contractor who alleged that the oil producer had tortuously interfered with the business relationship between the contractor and his best customer, the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the producer acted with the intent to interfere with the relationship or knowing that the interference was substantially certain to occur, and the judgment is affirmed because the damage awards were supported by the evidence, and the district court did not err when instructing the jury on improper interference.
Judgment is affirmed.
Janvrin v. Continental Resources Inc. (MLW No. 73815/Case No. 17-2661 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Wollman, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Scheier, J. (Gary S. Chilton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, argued for appellant) (Kenneth E. Barker, Belle Fourche, South Dakota, argued for appellee).