Higgs v. City of Fort Pierce

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling negligence claims were barred by the gist of the action doctrine where the university policies “represent[ed] the sole basis for the relationship between the parties”
• noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not formally adopted Restatement Second of Torts § 46 but applying § 46(1) as the appropriate legal standard to be applied in reviewing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
• using cautionary language like “might have” creates “a strong indication that this statement [was] merely one outlining possibilities” and is thus non-actionable
• analyzing whether a private university breached its contractual obligations to a dismissed student based on disciplinary procedures outlined in the university’s handbook
• finding use of the phrase “might have” rendered statement non-actionable because it was “a strong indication that this statement [was] merely one outlining possibilities”
• discussing Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2001)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).