Brewer v. Hillard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff could maintain tort-of-outrage claim because the jury could have believed that the defendant’s purpose was to cause emotional distress
• stating that “there is a clearly developed paradigm for outrage: when actions or contact is intended only to cause extreme emotional distress in the victim”
• stating that “there is a clearly developed paradigm for outrage: when actions or contact is intended only to cause extreme emotional distress in the victim”
• analyzing an agreement that obligated a man to pay his former wife retirement benefits if he retired at age 65 and finding a latent ambiguity when he retired at age 57 because the agreement was silent as to his obligations if he retired at any age other than 65
• \As to whether Brewer's conduct was outrageous and intolerable to the point of being actionable ... we have no trouble finding that it is.\
• “Battery is a tort which requires an unwanted touching of the victim. Assault requires the threat of touching.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).