Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is “improper for a trial court to review previous litigation which has gone on before another judge” and that “public policy precludes a second lawsuit because otherwise there would be no end to litigation”
• allegations that the plaintiff was exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule that injured the plaintiff's public confidence, business and reputation
• allegations that the plaintiff was exposed to “public hatred, contempt, and ridicule and tended to deprive [the plaintiff] of public confidence and injured it in its business and reputation”
• allegations that the plaintiff was exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule that injured the plaintiffs public confidence, business and reputation
• “Harris’ apparent need to alter, supplement and interpret the alleged statement of Phillips is conclusive evidence that Phillips’ actual words were not, standing by themselves, defamatory per se.”
• public policy precludes a second lawsuit because otherwise there would never be an end to litigation and it is improper for a trial court to review previous litigation that has gone on before another judge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).