Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 1/21/1999

Stuto v. Fleishman

Citations

  • 164 F.3d 820
  • 1999 WL 22659

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that intentional infliction of emotional distress claim may be supported by allegations of public humiliation
  • affirming dismissal of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where the plaintiff failed to allege conduct that was sufficiently extreme and outrageous
  • affirming dismissal of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where the plaintiff failed to allege conduct that was sufficiently extreme and outrageous
  • “[T]he negligent or intentional deprivation of property through the random and unauthorized acts of a state or federal employee does not constitute a deprivation of due process if ‘a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.’ ”
  • describing \preference\ of Sacramento as \nonmandatory\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Feinberg, Shadur, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.