Hansson v. Scalise Builders of SC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff’s testimony of lost sleep and teeth grinding is insufficient to meet the “severe” standard for an IIED claim
• holding the plaintiff's \passing references to fairly ordinary symptoms\ were \insufficient to create a jury question on the damages element of his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress\
• holding that Rule 56(c) \mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case[] and on which that party will bear the burden of proof.\
• holding that Rule 56(c) \mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case[] and on which that party will bear the burden of proof\ (first alteration in original
• stating that a trial court must determine whether the plaintiff has established that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to each of the four elements of the tort of outrage when ruling on a summary judgment motion
• discussing a heightened burden of proof but applying it in the context of a motion for summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).