enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of...

    Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]

  3. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving mental ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Year Case Ruling Right 1960 Dusky v. United States: Affirming a criminal defendant's constitutional right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial, and setting the standard for determination of such competence. BOR, 14th 1966 Pate v. Robinson

  4. Allison v. ExxonMobil Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_v._ExxonMobil_Corp.

    ExxonMobil has appealed this ruling. On February 26, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out much of the damages, including all of the $1 billion punitive damages and some of the $650 million compensatory damages. [1] The court also ruled that new trials were needed in the case. [2] Additional lawsuits have been filed by individual families.

  5. Negligent infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of...

    The first such case was Rodrigues v. State, [3] in which the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that plaintiffs could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligently caused flood damage to their home. This is generally considered to be the true birth of NIED as a separate tort.

  6. Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

    Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.

  7. Dillon v. Legg - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillon_v._Legg

    Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of ...

  8. Repressed memory - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

    Psychiatrist David Corwin has claimed that one of his cases provides evidence for the reality of repressed memories. This case involved a patient (the Jane Doe case) who, according to Corwin, had been seriously abused by her mother, had recalled the abuse at age six during therapy with Corwin, then eleven years later was unable to recall the abuse before memories of the abuse returned to her ...

  9. Thing v. La Chusa - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_v._La_Chusa

    La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson, and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial ...