Mid-South Beverages, Inc. v. Forrest City Grocery Co., Inc.
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. American Abstract & Title Co. (Ark. 2005)
- King v. Whitfield (Ark. 1999)
- Chambers v. Stern (Ark. 1999)
- Hames v. Cravens (Ark. 1998)
- Luxpro Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 2009)
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Correction (Ark. 1999)
- Mason v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Ark. 1998)
- LasikPlus Murphy, M.D., P.A. v. LCA-Vision, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 2011)
- Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc. v. MQVP, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 2005)
- Construction Management and Inspection, Inc. v. Caprock Communications Corp./caprock Telecommunications Corp. (8th Cir. 2002)
- Efurd v. Hackler (Ark. 1998)
- Cross v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission (Ark. 1997)
- James McNeill and Dennis McNeill Doing Business as McNeill Agency, Inc. v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Company (8th Cir. 1994)
- Rankin v. Farmers Tractor & Equipment Co., Inc. (Ark. 1994)
- Vanderford v. Penix (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1994)
- Forehand v. First Bank (Ark. 1993)
- Gordon v. Planters & Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (Ark. 1992)
- United Bilt Homes, Inc. v. Sampson (Ark. 1992)
- Wiener v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1991)
- W.E. Long Co. v. Holsum Baking Co. (Ark. 1991)
- Godwin v. Churchman (Ark. 1991)
- University Hospital v. Undernehr (Ark. 1991)
- CDI Contractors, Inc. v. Goff Steel Erectors, Inc. (Ark. 1990)
- Construction Mgt. v. Caprock (8th Cir. 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The question is whether the complaint filed by the appellant stated a cause of action for the tort of interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy. The chancellor ruled it did not and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We reverse his decision and remand for further proceedings.
The elements of the tort of interference are: (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or a business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. Walt Bennett Ford v. Pulaski County Spl. School Dist., 274 Ark. 208, 624 S.W.2d 426 (1981).
The complaint alleged: (1) Mid-South has an exclusive agreement with Pepsico to bottle and distribute its beverages in a certain geographic territory; (2) Forrest City Grocery (FCG) had sold and distributed Pepsi within Mid-South’s territory; (3) Mid-South’s customers were being induced to sever their business relationships with Mid-South and instead make purchases from FCG, causing loss of business to Mid-South; and (4) FCG acted wilfully, knowing its acts interfered with Mid-South’s contractual relationships and with its customers. The trial judge premised his decision on the fact there was no contractual relationship between Mid-South and FCG.
In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in a light most favorable to the plaintilf. It is improper for the trial judge to look beyond the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss. Battle v. Harris, 298 Ark. 241, 766 S.W.2d 431 (1989).
Using this standard of review, the complaint stated a cause of action. No contractual relationship had to exist between these parties. The chancellor dismissed the complaint with prejudice under ARCP Rule 12(b)(6). Even if grounds existed, the complaint should not have been dismissed with prejudice.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.