Doe v. Lazenby

How courts have described this case

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

• holding summary judgment on claim of outrage was appropriate when no evidence of any motive for defendant to act maliciously was presented to the court
• upholding denial of motion to amend filed 15 months after suit was filed; new claim could have been ascertained from defendants’ original discovery responses
• finding intentional infliction of emotional distress similar to defamation, with direct evidence of malice required
• “It is apparent that the public policy of this state is to encourage persons with information concerning possible child abuse to report this information to the proper authorities.”
• “We conclude that a record which requires an inference of malice merely ... from negligence in the reporting and investigation of the information is not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).