Sentences with phrase «outrageous conduct for»

Factors include outrageous conduct for a lengthy period of time without any rational justification, the defendant's awareness of the hardship it knew it was inflicting, whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate, the intent and motive of the defendant, whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct, whether the defendant profited from its misconduct, and whether the interest violated by the misconduct was known to be deeply personal to the plaintiff.

Not exact matches

Add that outrageous betrayal of trust to her 2009 self - appointed pay raise (and the entire city council) that defied a majority opposition to any pay raise voiced at a public hearing, followed by disobeying public referendum laws that recognized term limits that she abrogated (in favor of arranging an unlawful third term for Michael Bloomberg to serve, that automatically guaranteed her own job security), plus a final and detrimental insult to the working poor that blocked our rightful vote on sick pay coverage, and collectively, it would make total sense to impeach and prosecute such unethical, improper and unfair conduct — that is unbecoming to anyone purporting to serve their constituency.

Most of it comes from Churchill's fairly outrageous conduct in some cases, like dictating to his assistant Elizabeth (Lily James) while sitting in a tub — or when Churchill flashes a backward V sign for victory to photographers, only to be told by Elizabeth later that the gesture means «up your bum.»

Finally, you know that PETA has filed various motions to have the case dismissed by arguing that the dog was worthless, she had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they can not be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA's theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not «outrageous» conduct, and in an argument with racist overtones, that the family may not be in the country legally so PETA should be allowed to get away with the theft and murder of their dog.

Lawsuit update: PETA tells the Court that Maya was worthless and therefore they can't be financially liable to the family, that, at best, the dog had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they can not be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, and the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA's theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not «outrageous» conduct.

Finally, the Court overruled PETA's argument that stealing and killing a dog is not «outrageous conduct» required for awarding of punitive damages.

PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit by arguing that the dog was unlicensed so was not worth anything, the dog had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they can not be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, and the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA's theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not «outrageous» conduct.

«Even assuming the truth of all that, «callous, meddlesome, mean - spirited, officious, overbearing, and vindictive» as it would be — it is not enough to meet the outrageous conduct standard required for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress can arise when the conduct is outrageous.

In Stiles v. Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia (1989), 38 B.C.L.R. (2d) 307 (C.A.) Justice Lambert stated that full indemnity for legal fees should not be awarded unless there is some form of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct in the circumstances giving rise to the cause of action, or in the proceedings themselves that warrants chastisement.

The court disagreed, knocking out the case for failing to rise to the level of «outrageous» conduct.

Recovery for the intentional infliction of emotional distress is limited, however, to cases in which the plaintiff has established both that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous and that the plaintiff's resulting emotional distress was severe.

Punitive damages can also be awarded if the defendant's conduct was so outrageous that the court or the law of the state has the authority to punish the defendant for their actions.

Instead, they are awarded to punish a defendant for his or her outrageous conduct.

To recover in an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show (1) conduct that is intentional or reckless; (2) conduct that is also extreme and outrageous; (3) a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) emotional distress that is severe.

Prospectively, exemplary damages may be available if D has shown deliberate and reckless disregard of an outrageous nature of the claimant's rights, the conduct was punishable, and other remedies would not be adequate for punishment (Crime and Courts Act 2013, s 34 — not yet in force).

In the words of the Supreme Court, «to succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress».

As for the other claim, the family will have to prove that the conduct was extreme or outrageous and that it recklessly caused emotional distress.

Public Justice's cases typically involve suits against irresponsible corporations, the government, or powerful individuals for outrageous conduct that has resulted in injury.

Punitive damages for wrongful death are rare in Colorado, and apply only if the death was caused by the defendant's outrageous conduct.

A defendant's conduct must be outrageous in a broadside collision case for punitive damages to be available.

[39] The conduct of the Defendant corporation is outrageous because Altus got mean and cheap in trying to get rid of an employee as they approached arbitration for the determination of any adjustment in the asset purchase agreement price.

In Colorado, dog bites are governed by statute, and claims under the statute can be brought in addition to negligence claims, claims for negligence per se, and sometimes outrageous conduct claims.

The conduct of [the employer] is outrageous because [the employer] got mean and cheap in trying to get rid of an employee as they approached arbitration for the determination of any adjustment in the asset purchase agreement price.