District of Columbia v. Tulin

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 defendant officer's false statement that the plaintiff caused a car accident was sufficiently outrageous
• holding that the defendant officer’s false statement that the plaintiff caused a car accident was sufficiently outrageous
• holding that an off-duty detective’s “harsh words” toward a plaintiff after he suffered a car accident, which included “cursing and using all kinds of profanity,” did not constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct
• concluding that “an impartial trier of fact could fairly find that the two sergeants' authorization of the [plaintiff’s] arrest, without any inquiry on their part into [the basis for the arrest], constituted negligent supervision”
• observing that an “indirect” theory of IIED liability still involved a direct connection between the officer-defendant and the plaintiff
• concluding a jury could find negligent supervision when supervising officers improperly authorized the plaintiff’s arrest without determining whether it was justified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).