extreme outrageousness

In January 1990, Dr. Ira Gore, Jr., purchased a black BMW sports sedan for $40,750.88 from an authorized dealer in Birmingham, Alabama. The vehicle had been manufactured in Germany by BMW and shipped to the United States, where an independent service company in Brunswick, Georgia, determined that its finish had been damaged by acid rain during transit from Europe and refinished it at a cost of $601.37 before delivery to the Birmingham dealership. At the time of the purchase, BMW of North America, Inc., maintained a policy of not disclosing to dealers or customers that a new vehicle had been refinished if the cost of the repairs was less than 3 percent of the suggested retail price, and the refinishing cost for Gore's car amounted to approximately 1.5 percent of that price. After driving the car for about nine months, Gore took it to an independent detailer, who informed him that the car had been repainted. Gore then filed suit against BMW of North America, Inc., alleging fraud under Alabama law for the failure to disclose the repainting. At trial, BMW acknowledged that it had sold approximately 983 refinished cars as new in the United States since 1983, including 14 in Alabama, without disclosing the repairs when the cost exceeded $300 per vehicle. The jury awarded Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages, representing the difference in value between the car as delivered and its value had it not been refinished, along with $4 million in punitive damages. BMW moved to set aside the punitive damages award, introducing evidence that its nondisclosure policy aligned with the laws of roughly 25 states that required disclosure only for repairs exceeding 3 percent of the suggested retail price. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but reduced the punitive damages to $2 million after applying factors from Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby and Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, concluding that the jury's award was excessive but that $2 million remained permissible. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.

Dietemann, a disabled veteran with little education, was engaged in the practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs—as practiced, simple quackery. Defendant Time, Incorporated, publishes Life Magazine, and its November 1, 1963 edition carried an article entitled “Crackdown on Quackery” depicting plaintiff as a quack and including two pictures of him. Life Magazine entered into an arrangement with the District Attorney’s Office of Los Angeles County whereby Life’s employees would visit plaintiff and obtain facts and pictures concerning his activities. On September 20, 1963, Life employees Mrs. Jackie Metcalf and Mr. William Ray went to plaintiff’s home using a ruse to gain entrance by claiming they had been sent by a friend, a Mr. Johnson, and once admitted they went into plaintiff’s den where Ray photographed plaintiff with a hidden camera without consent while transmitting the conversation via a hidden radio transmitter in Metcalf’s purse to a tape recorder in a parked automobile. Prior to September 20, 1963, on two occasions the officials had obtained recordings of conversations in plaintiff’s home without Life employees participating, and on October 15, 1963, plaintiff was arrested at his home on a charge of practicing medicine without a license during which Life made many pictures. The district court awarded plaintiff $1000 general damages after a court trial in an action for invasion of privacy with jurisdiction grounded in diversity and the parties agreeing that California law governed, from which Time appealed.

In 1974 Michael Milkovich served as head wrestling coach at Maple Heights High School in Ohio. During a match against Mentor High School a fight broke out between the teams. Several wrestlers were injured and one opposing coach was struck in the face. Milkovich and Maple Heights superintendent H. Don Scott testified before the Ohio High School Athletic Association that Milkovich had not been involved in the altercation. The OHSAA censured Milkovich and placed the Maple Heights team on probation for one year. Several wrestlers and their parents sued the OHSAA in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, alleging denial of due process. Both Milkovich and Scott testified in that proceeding. The court overturned the OHSAA sanctions on due process grounds. The day after the decision the News-Herald published a column by J. Theodore Diadiun. The column bore the heading "Maple beat the law with the big lie.'" It stated that Milkovich and Scott lied at the hearing after each having given his solemn oath to tell the truth. It further stated that by the time the hearing before Judge Martin rolled around, Milkovich and Scott apparently had their version of the incident polished and reconstructed, and the judge apparently believed them. Milkovich filed a defamation action against Diadiun and the newspaper’s owner, Lorain Journal Co., in the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, Ohio. He alleged that the column accused him of committing perjury. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. On remand the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. In a parallel action brought by Superintendent Scott the Ohio Supreme Court held that the same column constituted protected opinion. Relying on that decision the Ohio Court of Appeals in Milkovich’s case affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Milkovich’s appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.