Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a party must seek leave to file amended or supplemental briefing and an appellate court has discretion as to whether to allow such briefing
• holding that “intentional infliction of emotional distress is not available as an independent cause of action unless the actor intends to cause severe emotional distress or severe emotional distress is the primary risk created by the actor’s reckless conduct”
• holding that because Texas Commission on Human Rights Act provided remedy 17 for same emotional damages caused by same discriminatory actions as those supporting IIED claim, “there is no remedial gap” and “thus no support” for jury’s award of IIED damages
• finding that a litigant “cannot wait more than six months and then argue that ‘justice’ requires that he be permitted post- argument to resurrect an abandoned claim” via a supplemental brief
• explaining that purpose of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim “is to supplement existing forms of recovery by providing a cause of action for egregious conduct that its more established neighbors in tort doctrine,would technically fence out” (internal quotation omitted)
• stating that primary risk of reckless driving is physical injury, not emotional distress

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).