A plaintiff who fails to make out a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on anonymous, offensive e-mails can't compel the sender's Internet service provider to reveal his or her identity, a New Jersey appeals court held Tuesday in a published opinion. The ruling instructs how e-mails fit into the contours of the decade-old precedent that allowed for unmasking anonymous posters of injurious comments on the Web if certain tests are met.
August 05, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A plaintiff who fails to make out a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on anonymous, offensive e-mails can’t compel the sender’s Internet service provider to reveal his or her identity, a New Jersey appeals court held Tuesday in a published opinion.
The ruling, in Juzwiak v. Doe, A-2302-09, instructs how e-mails fit into the contours of the decade-old precedent that allowed for unmasking anonymous posters of injurious comments on the Web if certain tests are met.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
