Ford v. Hutson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “where physical harm is lacking, the courts should look initially for more in the way of extreme outrage as an assurance that the mental disturbance claimed is not fictitious”
• recognizing the tort of outrage in South Carolina
• explaining “it is the province of the jury to make a factual determination”
• noting “a business relationship may sometimes justify one’s conduct and make that conduct excusable or at least less culpable, but it is at most a factor to be considered and weighed by the jury”
• affirming submission of case to jury when evidence demonstrated home-buyer repeatedly subjected plaintiff real estate agent to public browbeatings, obscenities, and threats over a two year period, and entered her home without permission verbally attacking her in front of guests
• defining the tort of “outrage” as “conduct ... so ‘extreme and outrageous’ as to exceed ‘all possible bounds of decency’ and must be regarded as ‘atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community’ ” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).