Whitt v. Hulsey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that giving a charge based on a criminal statute was not reversible error when the judge did not indicate to the jury that the charge was based on a criminal statute
• holding that there was “evidence sufficient to support the claim of outrageous conduct, where the alleged act was the desecration and destruction of a portion of a family burial ground”
• holding that there was “evidence sufficient to support the claim of outrageous conduct, where the alleged act was the desecration and destruction of a portion of a family burial ground”
• stating the settled rule that the ore tenus presumption of correctness in a boundary-line case is strengthened when the trial court views the property
• discussing \extreme and outrageous\ conduct and distress \so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it\ together
• finding evidence sufficient to support a claim of outrageous conduct when Defendant acted recklessly in clearing the land around the cemetery where relatives of the plaintiffs were buried

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).