Branda v. Sanford

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that slander per se is actionable without a showing of actual or “special” damages
• stating that rhetoric such as “insults and epithets” is 3 “not generally actionable”
• “[The] jury [is] entitled to determine, 19 considering prevailing circumstances, contemporary attitudes and [the Plaintiff's] own 20 susceptibility, whether the conduct in question constituted extreme outrage.”
• “[The] jury [is] 2 entitled to determine, considering prevailing circumstances, contemporary attitudes and 3 [the Plaintiff’s] own susceptibility, whether the conduct in question constituted extreme 4 outrage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).