Arrowhead Travel, Inc. v. Hinton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the act of grabbing another’s head and making pelvic thrusts in his face is boorish, vulgar, and unacceptable, but was not outrageous enough to satisfy the requisite element of outrage
• finding that workplace rumors to the effect that a co- worker is gay did not qualify as “credible evidence”
• affirming district court’s finding that two incidents of a coworker touching plaintiff’s buttocks were not severe
• \Stancombe's apparent belief that Woodfin was gay and workplace rumors to that effect do not qualify as 'credible evidence.' \
• “No doubt the act of grabbing another’s head and, while fully clothed, making pelvic thrusts in his face is boorish, vulgar, and completely unacceptable, but we cannot say that this one-time incident was so outrageous as to satisfy the requisite element of the tort of outrage.”
• “No doubt the act of grabbing another’s head and, while fully clothed, making pelvic thrusts in his face is boorish, vulgar, and completely unacceptable, but we cannot say that this one-time incident was so outrageous as to satisfy the requisite element of the tort of outrage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).