Parlange v. His Creditors

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that D.C. law governed when “alleged injury occurred in the District of Columbia, as did the tortious conduct,” even though plaintiffs resided out-of-district
• concluding under D.C. choice of law principles that D.C. law applies, observing that “the parties’ only relationship and interaction existed in D.C.”
• dismissing negligent infliction of emotional distress claim where plaintiffs failed to plead \serious and verifiable\ emotional distress
• dismissing negligent infliction of emotional distress claim where plaintiffs failed to plead “serious and verifiable” emotional distress
• rejecting plaintiffs’ suggestion that “sovereign immunity is a question of fact…when it is a quintessential question of law”
• dismissing a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiffs made “vague allegations about the[ir] fear” and did not state “serious, physical manifestations of emotional distress”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).