Kangrga v. Gjorev, 2017 MT 240N

In November 2009 Milan Kangrga and Blazo Gjorev each acquired 50% of four "Palmer" business entities that were financially troubled.
On April 26, 2011 Gjorev signed a written agreement to purchase Kangrga’s 50% interest for $1,000,000; contract barred transfer of shares until full payment. Last payment by Gjorev was Feb. 28, 2014; unpaid principal was $595,000 by March 2014.
On March 31, 2014 Gjorev sold a controlling interest in the Palmer entities to Transportation Equipment Corporation (TEC); funds were put into the business; Kangrga did not know of the sale at the time.
Kangrga sued Gjorev and TEC (filed Aug. 25, 2014) asserting eight claims; four at issue on appeal: tortious interference with business opportunity, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and intentional interference with contractual/business relations.
District Court granted summary judgment for breach of contract (liability) but left damages to the jury; at trial (July 14, 2016) the jury found for Gjorev and TEC on all claims and awarded no damages to Kangrga; a punitive award to Gjorev was later waived.
On appeal Kangrga argued the jury verdict lacked substantial credible evidence; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the record contained sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s credibility determinations and verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract — damages	Kangrga contended the jury should have awarded contract damages after court found breach.	Gjorev/TEC argued Kangrga failed to prove contract damages to the jury’s satisfaction.	Court: Affirmed jury — liability noted by summary judgment but Kangrga failed to prove damages; jury awarded none.
Tortious/intentional interference	Kangrga argued defendants unlawfully interfered with his business/contractual relations.	Defendants argued their actions were lawful/justified and offered evidence to rebut interference claims.	Court: Affirmed — jury credited defendants; evidence was substantial and credible.
Civil conspiracy	Kangrga claimed concerted unlawful action between Gjorev and TEC.	Defendants denied unlawful concerted action and presented contrary evidence.	Court: Affirmed — jury found against Kangrga; record supports credibility findings favoring defendants.
Sufficiency of evidence / standard of review	Kangrga argued the verdict was unsupported by substantial credible evidence.	Defendants urged deference to jury’s credibility determinations and proper application of the substantial‑credible‑evidence standard.	Court: Affirmed — applied substantial credible evidence standard, viewing facts favorably to prevailing parties; jury verdict sustained.

Hansen v. Hansen, 835 P.2d 748 (1992) (standard for viewing evidence in support of a jury verdict)
D.R. Four Beat Alliance, LLC v. Sierra Prod. Co., 218 P.3d 827 (2009) (definition of substantial credible evidence)
Campbell v. Canty, 969 P.2d 268 (1998) (appellate court does not reweigh jury credibility determinations)
Wise v. Ford Motor Co., 943 P.2d 1310 (1997) (jurors determine weight and credibility of conflicting evidence)