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

• Bouie v. Autozone, Inc.
  959 F.2d 875· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-24
  The court held that racial slurs not made directly to the plaintiff, nor in his presence or hearing, and only repeated secondhand, do not constitute outrageous conduct for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New Mexico law.
• Crot v. Byrne
  957 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-28
  The court held that the Illinois Industrial Commission's determination that the plaintiff's discharge did not cause his stroke collaterally estopped him from relitigating that issue in a subsequent federal action.
• Williams v. Fed. Land Bank OF Jackson
  954 F.2d 774· D.C. Cir.· 1992-02-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims failed because the lenders' actions were justified by federal statute and regulations, and no fiduciary duty or breach of contract was established under Mississippi law.
• Jackson v. Integra Inc.
  952 F.2d 1260· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-31
  The court held that the district court erred by considering matters outside the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and by failing to inform the pro se plaintiff of this conversion. It also held that an employee handbook can creat
• Mirax Chem. Prods. Corp. v. First Interstate Commercial Corp.
  950 F.2d 566· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-06
  A loan agreement provision allowing termination at will, even with specified events of default, is not ambiguous and does not preclude the lender from exercising that right. Actions specifically authorized by the agreement cannot constitute a breach of the duty of good faith.
• Paskvan v. City OF Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm'n
  946 F.2d 1233· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-18
  The court held that the plaintiff arguably alleged sufficient facts to create an implied contract or mutually explicit understanding for promotion based on test scores, and alleged a lack of adequate state remedy, thus surviving the motion to dismiss.
• Rosenkrantz v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A.
  586 So. 2d 428· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-09-11
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to refute the trial court's conclusions for a directed verdict on negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.
• Carroll v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  943 F.2d 878· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-04
  The court held that the district court's dismissal was not adequately reasoned for appellate review and that a remand was necessary to address the preemption and dismissal issues.
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nycum
  943 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-29
  The court held that the mere allegation of sexual molestation does not preclude insurance coverage, and the insurer must prove the act was willful, not merely negligent.
• Pratt v. United Automobile
  939 F.2d 385· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-23
  The court held that a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation can be brought under Section 9(a) of the NLRA independent of a claim against the employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The court also held that the issue of exhaustion of intra-union r
• Wolff v. Berkley Inc.
  938 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-01
  The court held that Iowa law does not permit recovery of emotional damages in fraud cases, and that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge.
• Rios v. Navarro
  766 F. Supp. 1158· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-24
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging injury to reputation without loss of employment or other tangible legal right does not state a claim under § 1983, and pendent state law claims should be dismissed.
• Wilson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  934 F.2d 261· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-30
  The court held that a sole proprietor's lost income under the CAARA must be calculated by deducting business expenses, and that the CAARA does not preempt a common law claim for bad faith breach of insurance contract.
• Boehm v. Am. Broad. Co., Inc.
  929 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-27
  The court held that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving that the offered position was substantially equivalent to the discharged employee's former role, thus its liability for lost compensation damages was not cut off.
• Meleen v. Hazelden Found.
  928 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-18
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding no error in the interpretation of employment policies, the investigation process, or the dismissal of claims.
• Se. Administrators, Inc. v. Moriarty
  571 So. 2d 589· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-12-28
  Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit court from hearing a workers' compensation dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that claims arising from a workers' compensation carrier's failure to pay benefits fall exclusively unde
• Duncan v. Rolm Mil-Spec Computers & Loral Corp.
  917 F.2d 261· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-24
  An employee's acknowledgment of at-will employment in an application supersedes subsequent oral assurances or general statements in handbooks, and claims for wages must first exhaust administrative remedies.
• Elsey v. Burger King Corp.
  917 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-23
  The court held that the plaintiff was an at-will employee and not protected by an implied contract of employment, affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Lowell Musick and Sharlene Musick v. Burke
  913 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-07
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants' local activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act or RICO.
• Warna Irene Lewis v. Pearson Found., Inc.
  908 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-10
  The dissenting judge believes the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because she did not show state involvement in the alleged conspiracy, which is necessary when the right violated is protected only against governmental interference.
• Birnstill v. Home Sav. OF Am.
  907 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-02
  The court held that Missouri law properly applied to the case and that under Missouri's employee-at-will doctrine, the plaintiffs' claims were barred.
• Mallock v. S. Mem'l Park, Inc.
  561 So. 2d 330· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-04-17
  The Mallocks appealed the dismissal of their claims against Southern Memorial Park for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of statutory access rights after being ejected from the cemetery during a memorial service for their son. The court reversed, holding tha
• Gadis Jones v. Bramalea Ctrs., Inc.
  559 So. 2d 298· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-03-29
  The court reversed summary judgment for a shopping mall owner in a negligence action arising from a bear attack on a child. The key issue was whether the mall owner was actively involved in promoting the bear performance or merely a passive property owner with no duty to supervis
• Ross v. Meyers
  883 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-25
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions without notice or a hearing, and by reinstating the full punitive damages award without adequate explanation. The court also affirmed the denial of the officer's motions for judgment notwithstandin
• Premier Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. Fuentes
  880 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-26
  The court held that the injunction's requirement to remove microwave equipment was overbroad and ambiguous, and that the dismissal of counterclaims based on demand letters was erroneous due to a recent change in California law regarding the judicial privilege.
• Teri-Ann Gross v. Winter
  876 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-26
  A District of Columbia Councilmember is not absolutely immune from suit for personnel decisions made in an administrative capacity, even if the employee's duties were related to legislative functions.
• Palestri v. Monogram Models, Inc.
  875 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-19
  The court held that for a single mailing of allegedly libelous material, New Jersey law would likely consider the statute of limitations to begin running upon receipt, not mailing, to ensure plaintiffs have the full statutory period to file suit.
• Bergal v. Metro. Waste Control Comm'n & Louis Breimhurst
  873 F.2d 1166· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-08
  The court held that disparate impact analysis can apply to subjective employment criteria, requiring reconsideration of the plaintiff's claim.
• Jarrett v. United States
  874 F.2d 201· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-08
  The court held that claims arising under the Social Security Act are exclusively remediable under that Act, precluding actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act or for constitutional torts seeking monetary damages.
• Burt v. Ferrese
  871 F.2d 14· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-28
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding probable cause for the § 1983 claim, but affirmed summary judgment on state law claims and the § 1985 claim.
• Windsor v. Aegis Servs., Ltd.
  869 F.2d 796· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-23
  An oral employment contract providing for dismissal for 'just cause' is unenforceable under the Virginia Statute of Frauds because it cannot be performed within one year.
• Shamley v. ITT Corp.
  869 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-01
  The court held that a partial final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) can be entered to create res judicata effects in another forum, and that New York law, not New Jersey law, applied to the plaintiff's state law claims.
• Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc.
  867 F.2d 1188· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-24
  The court held that the features published by Hustler constituted privileged opinion, not actionable statements of fact, and that Dworkin failed to present evidence of actual malice. Furthermore, Dworkin's privacy claims under New York law were not actionable as they did not invo
• Cremeans v. City OF Roseville
  861 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-28
  The court held that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process, and the trial court erred in submitting the § 1983 claim to the jury.
• Mr. Furniture Warehouse, Inc. v. Barclays American/Commercial, Inc.
  450 F.2d 845· S.D. Fla.· 1988-10-19
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert antitrust claims because their alleged injuries were too remote from the purported violations and not the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
• Ernie Barker and Ineta Barker v. SAC Osage Elec. Coop.
  857 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-21
  A reservation in a settlement agreement permitting an injured party to sue remaining individuals is valid if clearly expressed, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment for individual directors when such a reservation existed.
• Curl v. Gen. Tel. Co. OF THE Sw. & Commc'n Workers of Am.
  861 F.2d 171· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-29
  State tort claims for retaliatory discharge are not preempted by federal labor law, and the district court's dismissal on preemption grounds is reversed.
• Grandchamp v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  854 F.2d 381· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-18
  The court held that a bare age discrimination claim, without more, does not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Colorado law.
• Geza J. Jako, M.D. v. Pilling Co.
  848 F.2d 318· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-08
  The court held that summary judgment for the plaintiff on breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims was appropriate, but summary judgment for the defendant on a $5,000 advance counterclaim was not.
• Samad v. Jenkins
  845 F.2d 660· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-06
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a viable § 1983 claim for deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights, as he did not demonstrate a substantial, tangible harm or material change in employment status, nor did the defendant's letter constitute a chilling of Firs
• Markell v. Les Pikula and Terry Nash
  841 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-15
  Federal officials are not absolutely immune from state law tort liability for conduct within the scope of employment unless the conduct is also discretionary.
• Whitlock v. Duke Univ.
  829 F.2d 1340· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-06
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding the plaintiffs' claims.
• Jules Kanarek & Valley House, Inc. v. Hatch
  827 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-17
  The court held that the attorney's arguments were reasonable and not made in bad faith, thus reversing the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Economu v. Borg-Warner Corp. & Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc.
  829 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was untimely filed because the 300-day limitation period began to run when the employer communicated its discriminatory decision to the plaintiff or his attorney, and the plaintiff's remaining s
• Thornhill v. Donnkenny, Inc.
  823 F.2d 782· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-14
  The court held that the jury's verdict for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty was supported by sufficient evidence, but the denial of prejudgment interest was error, and the malicious termination claim is not a valid cause of action under Virginia law.
• Davis v. Gulf Life Ins. Co.
  502 So. 2d 1012· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-24
• Millie Skelton v. Munez
  502 So. 2d 72· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-10
  Florida appellate court reversed a jury verdict for intentional infliction of mental distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and conversion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases for the tort claims and the damages award for contract and conversio
• Pierce v. United States
  804 F.2d 101· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-28
  The court held that the government employees' periodic medical review of social security cases falls under the FTCA's discretionary function exception, barring the suit.
• ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Ralee Eng'g Co.
  804 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-19
  An insurer has no duty to defend an insured against claims for intentional acts if the policy only covers accidental events, and the insurer adequately reserved its right to deny coverage.
• Langager v. Lake Havasu Cmty. Hosp.
  799 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-16
  The court held that the medical malpractice claim was time-barred due to concession, and the spoliation of evidence claim was also time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations.