Brower v. Ackerley (1997)

a.       Facts- D erected billboards that P did not like. P successfully convinced the city to remove said billboards. D then started threatening P’s life via telephone. P then sued for assault

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct gave D summary judgment on the assault claim. Ct of appeals affirmed in regards to the assault claim

c.       Issue- Whether telephone threats constitute the requisite element for assault

d.      Holding- No, telephone threats do not constitute the requisite element for assault

e.       Rule- An imminent threat is an element of assault that must be satisfied to claim assault

f.       Rationale- While a threat over telephone can be considered a threat, it does not put apprehension of imminent, dangerous contact. But rather, a delayed harmful or offensive contact

g.      Notes- Why must the threat be imminent?

                                                              i.      Because the harm is most likely to occur if the threat is imminent

                                                            ii.      Downside of imminence: You can have a HUGE, REAL threat…but if it’s not imminent, you can’t bring suit for assault