Estes v. Inhabitants of China

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “societal advancements in mental health treatment and education... assures [that] individuals suffering from legitimate emotional injuries will be able to seek recovery”
• explaining that “emotional tranquility is rarely attained and that some degree of emotional harm is an unfortunate reality of living in a modem society”
• stating that punitive damages can be awarded in a legal malpractice case against attorneys who have “acted with oppression, fraud, or malice”
• requiring that the emotional injury be one where “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would not be expected to endure the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case”
• retracting from the “impact rule,” under which it formerly required some form of physical impact as a prerequisite for a claim of emotional injury
• requiring expert proof of emotional damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which arguably applies if no other damages exist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).