Charles Williams v. Michael Guzzardi and Chancellor Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Pennsylvania courts have been more amenable to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims when they involve special relationships between plaintiff and defendant
• explaining that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 14 Circuit distilled the four elements of the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress from the Restatement (Second) of Torts
• discussing Chuy v. Phila. Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265, 1273 (3d Cir. 1979) (en banc)
• construing Katzaksky “. . . as limiting the scope of liability by requiring competent medical evidence of causation and severity.
• discussing Chuy v. Phila. Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265, 1273 (3d Cir. 1979) (en banc)
• explaining that IIED tort “had four elements: the conduct must be extreme and outrageous, it must be intentional or reckless, it must cause emotional distress, and the distress must be severe” (citing Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265, 1273 (3d Cir. 1979

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).