Page:Brown v. Tucker.pdf/2

---

---

1. APPEAL & ERROR—RECORD—IMPRACTICAL TO REQUIRE SEVEN JUSTICES TO EXAMINE ONE TRANSCRIPT.—A citation in an argument to the place in the record where all the factual allegations can be found is not an adequate substitute for a complete abstract; it is impractical to require all seven members of the supreme court to examine one transcript in order to decide an issue on appeal.
2. TORTS—INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP—ELEMENTS.—The elements of tortious interference that must be proved are (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or a business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expec.tancy on the part of the interfering party; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.
3. TORTS—DEFAMATION—ELEMENTS.—The following elements must be proven to support a claim of defamation, whether it be by the spoken word (slander) or the written word (libel): (1) the defamatory nature of the statement of fact; (2) that statement's identification of or reference to the plaintiff; (3) publication of the statement by the defendant; (4) the defendant's fault in the publica.tion; (5) the statement's falsity; and (6) damages.
4. TORTS—DEFAMATION—STATEMENT IMPLYING ASSERTION OF FACT—FACTORS.—To determine whether a statement may be viewed as implying an assertion of fact, the following factors must be weighed: (1) whether the author used figurative or hyperbolic language that would negate the impression that he or she was seriously maintaining implied fact; (2) whether the general tenor of the publication negates this impression; and (3) whether the published assertion is susceptible of being proved true or false.
5. TORTS—OUTRAGE—ELEMENTS.—To establish an outrage claim, it must be shown that (1) the actor intended to inflict emo.tional distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, was beyond all possible bounds of decency, and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiffs distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
6. APPEAL & ERROR—APPELLANT FAILED TO STATE SUFFICIENT FACTS FOR RELIEF—TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DISMISSING COMPLAINT.—Construing the complaint liberally, the supreme