Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

1,636 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 8 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Pruitt v. Chow
  742 F.2d 1104· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants did not publish the allegedly defamatory letter to any third party other than the intended recipient, and the letter was not reasonably susceptible to a defamatory interpretation regarding the plaintiff.
• Mutafis v. Erie Ins. Exch.
  728 F.2d 672· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court certified questions of West Virginia law regarding the applicability of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, the existence of a private cause of action, and the availability of qualified privilege to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
• Divco Constr. & Realty Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
  575 F. Supp. 712· S.D. Fla.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that RICO claims are not available for 'garden variety' securities fraud absent an alleged nexus to organized crime, and that pendent state law claims should be dismissed to avoid jury confusion.
• Millicent Geist v. Martin
  675 F.2d 859· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for severe mental distress caused by outrageous conduct.
• Hall v. Bio-Medical Application, Inc.
  671 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the § 1981 claim, class certification, or the medical malpractice finding.
• Sigler v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co.
  663 F.2d 49· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the insured's death by autoerotic asphyxia was a self-inflicted injury not covered by the accidental death benefit policy.
• Shewmaker v. Minchew
  666 F.2d 616· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's claims, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning on the merits.
• Riley v. Univ. OF Lowell
  651 F.2d 822· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or in its conduct, and that the jury verdict for the defendants was proper.
• Medel v. Republic Nat'l Bank OF Miami
  365 So. 2d 782· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-12-19 ·cited 2×
  Rogelio Medel sued his judgment creditor's attorney Michael Striar for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion after Striar obtained Medel's jewelry through deception during a deposition, claiming self-help collection rights under Florida law. The court revers
• Jarvis v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  525 F.2d 1267· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Iowa law requires proof of willful or malicious acts to recover for emotional distress, and the district court properly applied this standard.
• Klenna Ann Fletcher v. Fla. Publ'g Co.
  319 So. 2d 100· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-09-10 ·cited 2×
  Fletcher sued a newspaper for invasion of privacy after its photographer, accompanied by firefighters and police investigating her home after a fatal fire, entered her residence without her consent and photographed her deceased daughter's body silhouette. The trial court granted
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Riley
  294 So. 2d 59· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-09 ·cited 2×
  Riley sued his former insurer Fireman's Fund and its adjuster Keil for libel and tortious conduct, claiming they disclosed his privileged statement to another insurer. The court reversed summary judgment for Riley, holding that Keil's testimony about Riley's prior inconsistent st
• Roque v. Swezy
  429 So. 3d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-01-21 ·cited 1×
  In this appeal, the court addressed whether a trial court must weigh competing proffers when both parties simultaneously move for leave to assert punitive damages claims. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of both motions, holding that the court need not weigh evidence or
• Berg v. United States
  2025 WL 2394684· M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-25 ·cited 1×
  The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are inextricably intertwined with a determination of veteran disability benefits, as these are exclusively governed by the Veterans Judicial Review Act.
• Merritt v. Knowles
  2021 WL 3857560· M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and that her state tort claims and federal due process claims were time-barred by Florida's statutes of limitations.
• Cross v. Johnson
  2023 WL 11878294· S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended denying the defendant's motion for attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiff's civil rights claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Marline Amiache v. Island Towers, Inc.
  367 So. 3d 545· Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-08-02 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal order, finding the trial court mistakenly believed the case was already resolved by a prior appellate ruling. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the prior ruling only applied to different pa
• Henry v. Bank of Am. N.A.
  371 So. 3d 386· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-12-22 ·cited 1×
  Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for filing bar complaints related to cases before them; Florida Bar staff acting in official capacities enjoy absolute immunity as agents of the Florida Supreme Court; and claims against a probation officer were time-barred.
• Kohl's Dep't Store, Inc. v. Young
  47 Fla. L. Weekly S1· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-03-10 ·cited 1×
  Kohl's sought certiorari review of a trial court order granting a customer leave to amend her complaint to add punitive damages claims. The Fifth DCA found the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by using the general liberal amendment standard rather than the more str
• Herrera v. Jarden Corp.
  334 So. 3d 637· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-02-23 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a final judgment for the defendant after a jury trial. The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's whistleblower claim as time-barred and properly precluded the plaintiff's counsel from questioning the defendant's in-house
• Toledo v. Adventhealth N. Polk, Inc.
  2006 WL 3333621· M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's mental condition was sufficiently in controversy and good cause existed to compel an independent medical examination under Rule 35.
• ST. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Magali Neff
  275 So. 3d 220· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-06-26 ·cited 1×
  A temporary injunction compelling readmission to a private school must be supported by clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings addressing all four elements of the test: substantial likelihood of success on the merits, lack of adequate remedy at law, irrepar
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. The Est. of Michael Cimino
  279 So. 3d 200· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-06-12 ·cited 1×
  When a party seeks to compel disclosure of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court must conduct an in camera review of the documents before ordering disclosure, and if privilege is waived, the court must delineate t
• Frederic Bouin v. Disabatino
  250 So. 3d 168· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-13 ·cited 1×
  A trial court errs when it dismisses an interspousal tort complaint with prejudice at the motion to dismiss stage based on exclusive family court jurisdiction over marital property disputes, without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, because the classification of ass
• Kendron v. SCI Funeral Servs. OF Fla., LLC
  230 So. 3d 636· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-12-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but did bar the claim for tortious interference with human remains.
• Am. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Merced
  186 So. 3d 612· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-03-02 ·cited 1×
  Pinnacle Realty Group and its regional manager appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in an employment dispute. The court reversed because the trial court erred by failing to set an expedited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed factual issues
• Chartrand v. Vonda Parsons
  164 So. 3d 117· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-05-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that some counts of the pro se complaint were properly dismissed, while others should be remanded to allow for amendment.
• Shedrick v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Coll.
  1991 WL 29454· S.D. Fla.· 2013-04-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Miami-Dade College is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and that plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages from the college under Title VII or the FCRA. The court also found that John Williams failed to exhaust administ
• Mikesell v. FIA Card Servs., N.A.
  75 F. Supp. 489· M.D. Fla.· 2013-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely because the initial complaint did not facially establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and a subsequent settlement demand provided the necessary amount in controversy within the removal period.
• Tello v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  1990 WL 255591· S.D. Fla.· 2013-03-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded a negligence claim and a claim for respondeat superior/agency liability, but failed to adequately plead claims for negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional
• Bollea v. Gawker Media, LLC
  462 F. Supp. 2d 561· M.D. Fla.· 2012-12-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of his copyright infringement claim or that he would suffer irreparable harm, thus denying his motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Russell-Brown v. Jerry
  231 F. Supp. 284· N.D. Fla.· 2010-08-19 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but conditioned it upon the plaintiff reimbursing the defendants for their reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in both the original and current Florida cases.
• Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
  696 F. Supp. 2d 1282· S.D. Fla.· 2010-03-22 ·cited 1×
  A motion for reconsideration is denied when the movant fails to show clear error or manifest injustice, and the arguments presented were previously considered. The scope of an arbitration agreement is determined by U.S. federal law, focusing on the factual allegations of the comp
• Kilpatrick v. United States
  578 F. Supp. 2d 1339· N.D. Fla.· 2008-09-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Defendant Roegner is entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim but not on the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims; the United States is liable for state law false imprisonment but not other tort claims due to the discretionary function ex
• Saludes v. Republica De Cuba
  577 F. Supp. 2d 1243· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-12 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part the motion for default judgment, finding jurisdiction under the FSIA and that the plaintiff had established her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but required further evidence to determine damages.
• Ela Barbara SAN Pedro v. Pedro
  910 So. 2d 426· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-09-21 ·cited 1×
  A wife appealed a trial court order dismissing her tort claims against her husband in a dissolution of marriage action based on the statute of limitations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the wife adequately pleaded equitable estoppel to avoid the limit
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg
  351 F.3d 473· 11th Cir.· 2003-11-14 ·cited 1×
  Allstate Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend its insured, Victor Ginsberg, in a state court invasion of privacy action brought by Elaine Scarfo based on allegations of unwelcome sexual touching and offensive comments in the workplace. The
• Ayodele O. Shedeke v. Antonia (Poy Wing) Gomez
  837 So. 2d 1122· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-02-19 ·cited 1×
• Massey v. David
  831 So. 2d 226· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-10-30 ·cited 1×
  Gary Massey sued Calvin David and others for legal malpractice and related claims arising from their representation in a toxic tort lawsuit. The trial court granted David's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, finding that the issues had alre
• Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton
  223 F. Supp. 2d 1284· M.D. Fla.· 2002-08-13 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint.
• Aindry DE LA Campa v. Grifols Am., Inc.
  819 So. 2d 940· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-06-26 ·cited 1×
  De La Campa appeals the dismissal of her employment discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against her former employer Grifols and supervisors. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Miami-Dade County Code Chapter 11A does not create a priv
• Fla. First Fin. Grp., Inc. v. De Castro
  815 So. 2d 789· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in compelling discovery of employee contact information, correspondence, and phone records, as these disclosures did not violate privacy rights or consumer protection statutes in this context.
• Walton v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc.
  203 F. Supp. 2d 1312· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-05 ·cited 1×
  An employer is not vicariously liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment if no tangible employment action occurred and the employer proves the two-prong Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense.
• Marotte v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  159 F. Supp. 2d 1374· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were governed by the Warsaw Convention and were time-barred by its two-year statute of limitations because the incident occurred during the process of embarking.
• Hare v. Citrus World Inc.
  39 F. Supp. 2d 1365· M.D. Fla.· 1999-03-16 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the alleged conduct not sufficiently outrageous, and denied the motion to amend to add a battery claim, declining supplemental jurisdiction.
• Armindo v. Padlocker, Inc.
  71 F. Supp. 2d 1238· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the employer's stated reason for termination (absenteeism and tardiness) was legitimate and non-discriminatory, and the plaintiff failed to show pretext.
• Johnson v. Woodruff
  28 F. Supp. 2d 1248· M.D. Fla.· 1998-11-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that constructive discharge claims could proceed to a jury, but claims predating statutory limits and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred or unsubstantiated.
• Metzler v. Bear Auto. Serv. Equip. Co.
  19 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 1998-09-04 ·cited 1×
  Metzler and Allstate's sued SPX, Bear Automotive, and Allen Group for antitrust violations under Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, alleging illegal tying of internal parts to repair services and monopolization of the automotive diagnostic equipment aftermarket. The court granted summ
• Norris v. Davis
  958 F. Supp. 606· S.D. Fla.· 1997-03-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because their alleged contacts with Florida were insufficient to satisfy due process requirements, despite Florida's long-arm statute potentially applying.
• Fernandez v. Cmty. Asphalt, Inc.
  934 F. Supp. 418· S.D. Fla.· 1996-05-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that individual defendants cannot be held liable under federal anti-discrimination statutes or Florida's anti-discrimination statute, and that the plaintiff's claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress did not meet the required legal stan