Troncalli v. Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because there was no statutory or case law to support a finding of a cause of action, this Court would not create one for stalking, and noting that there were alternative methods for handling stalking, including raising a claim of invasion of privacy
• reversing jury verdict as to civil stalking claim because there is no cause of action for stalking simply because a criminal statute prohibits it
• characterizing the plaintiff’s shingles, nausea and vomiting, depression, and psychological counseling as “severe emotional distress”
• reversing jury verdict as to a tort claim for civil-stalking because nothing in the statute that defines the crime of stalking creates a private cause of action in tort in favor of the victim
• “[Because] the jury found a general verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant, the verdict cannot stand for the reason that this court cannot determine whether the verdict was entered upon a proper basis.” (punctuation omitted)
• enactment of criminal stalking statute did not create a tort of stalking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).