Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8688645
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hutchens v. Hutchens
No. 8688645 · Decided July 10, 2008
No. 8688645·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 10, 2008
Citation
No. 8688645
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** Alien G. Hutchens (“Hutchens”) appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his diversity action alleging tortious interference with Hutchens’ expected inheritance from his mother. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Fanucchi & Limi Farms v. United Agri Products, 414 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant because Hutchens did not raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered economic damages as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct, a necessary element to his claim. See McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 , 901 P.2d 841, 844 (1995) (explaining that a plaintiff making a claim for intentional interference with economic relations must establish, inter alia, that she was damaged by the defendant’s conduct). Hutchens’ remaining contentions are unavailing, AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
Hutchens (“Hutchens”) appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his diversity action alleging tortious interference with Hutchens’ expected inheritance from his mother.
Key Points
01Hutchens (“Hutchens”) appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his diversity action alleging tortious interference with Hutchens’ expected inheritance from his mother.
02The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant because Hutchens did not raise a triable issue as to whether he suffered economic damages as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct, a necessary element to his claim.
03532 , 901 P.2d 841, 844 (1995) (explaining that a plaintiff making a claim for intentional interference with economic relations must establish, inter alia, that she was damaged by the defendant’s conduct).
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
Hutchens (“Hutchens”) appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his diversity action alleging tortious interference with Hutchens’ expected inheritance from his mother.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hutchens v. Hutchens in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 10, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8688645 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.