support the jury’s finding of a conspiracy and the district court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. VI The jury found that Rubsamen tortiously interfered with Joey Clark’s inheritance and awarded $3 million in damages to him. Rubsamen contends that there is no evidence of any tortious interference with Carolyn’s wills, nor any evidence of property that would have passed by will. Accordingly, she requests that the jury’s verdict be set aside. Rubsamen notes that the Texas Supreme Court has not recognized a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance, but that Texas’s appellate courts do recognize it. In re Russell, — S.W.3d -, -, 2009 WL 3855950, at *5 (Tex.App.El Paso Nov. 18, 2009, no pet.); King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.Houston 1987, no writ) (<HOLDING>). The cases to have considered the cause of
recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that a claim for tortious interference with inheritance exists under texas law holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims