|PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
OF PITTSBURG, INC.,
|PEPSICO, INC.; BOTTLING GROUP,
|A.D. HUESING BOTTLING WORKS,
INC., et al.
We grant the petition in part and strike the sentence on page 34 of the Opinion filed in this case on December 20, 2005, which states (quoting from PulseCard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc., 917 F. Supp. 1488, 1498 (D. Kan. 1996)) "Tortious interference with a prospective business relationship requires some type of communication between the defendant and the third party in which the defendant induces the third party not to engage in a prospective contract or business relation with the plaintiff." Pittsburg Pepsi correctly asserts that this "communication" requirement is not a required element of tortious interference under Kansas law.
The petition for rehearing in all other regards is denied. A copy of the amended Opinion is attached to this order.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
*.This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.