I assumed it's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. I would assume the damages will be dramatically reduced, but the point's been made. As with OJ, the defendants haven't anything like the assets needed to satisfy even the actual damages part of the award.
Susan Jean Dudley wrote: > It occurs to me that all of this could have been avoided if the > father of the deceased soldier, in a fit of grief-driven rage, had > taken Mr. Phelp's (or possibly Mr. Phelp's daughter's) life and then > claimed temporary insanity. > > But then I might have been tempted to show up at the funeral with a > sign that says "God hates homobigots". Would the Westboro Baptist > Church have the right to sue me for damages? Frankly, I suspect that > this decision is going to be overturned, or at the very least, the > amount will be lowered dramatically. All I can say it's a damn shame > there's no law against malicious bad manners in this country. > > Jean Dudley > "You can't get blood from a turnip." > > P. S. Would someone kindly clue me in on what IIED stands for, please? > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
