Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two unsolicited phone calls with threatening and vulgar words didn’t constitute invasion of privacy
• stating that “unacceptable conduct” upon which a claim of invasion of privacy is based is such that is “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency” (quoting Ponton v. Scarfone, 468 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985))
• the conduct alleged must be “atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).