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

• Krynicky v. Univ. OF Pittsburgh
  742 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 19×
  The Supreme Court's recent decisions in the Lugar trilogy did not overrule prior circuit precedent (Braden) establishing a 'symbiotic relationship' between the Commonwealth and state-related universities like Pitt and Temple.
• RAY v. Edwards
  725 F.2d 655· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that it would not review the issue of whether a public employee's liberty interest is violated by public stigma from firing if the employer knew or should have known of the stigma, as it would be an advisory opinion. However, it affirmed that a private advocacy gro
• Mundy v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  676 F.2d 503· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of harassment, even if true, did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law.
• Steiner & Munach, P.A. v. Williams
  334 So. 2d 39· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-03-23 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a medical association that sent a simulated legal claim to a patient for an unpaid anesthesia fee.
• Peeler v. Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  206 So. 2d 34· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-12-27 ·cited 19×
  This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs from an order dismissing their complaint against an insurance company. The court held that the complaint stated a cause of action for negligence against the insurance company for hiring an unlicensed doctor who assaulted the applicant du
• Douglas v. United States
  814 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2016-02-29 ·cited 18×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the inmate's pay claim, finding that the discretionary function exception did not apply because Bureau of Prisons regulations mandated the payment of vested wages. The court affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's oth
• Lopez v. Target Corp.
  676 F.3d 1230· 11th Cir.· 2012-04-10 ·cited 18×
  Lorenzo Lopez, a Hispanic customer, alleged that a white Target cashier refused to serve him based on his race and publicly humiliated him, bringing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability, negligent training and supervision, and violation of
• Ammons v. Okeechobee Cnty.
  710 So. 2d 641· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-15 ·cited 18×
  Lisa Ammons and other appellants sought damages and injunctive relief after Okeechobee County revoked their occupational license for a commercial aluminum business, claiming the county was equitably estopped from doing so and that their constitutional rights were violated. The Fo
• Tex. Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Ward
  696 So. 2d 930· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-09 ·cited 18×
  A foreign corporation's acts of mailing debt collection letters and making telephone calls to a Florida resident are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
• Rosen v. David H. Zoberg, Law Offs. of David H. Zoberg, P.A.
  680 So. 2d 1050· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-09-25 ·cited 18×
  Bonnie Rosen appealed summary judgments against her in a fraudulent transfer action arising from her former attorney's transfer of assets. The court affirmed the summary judgment against the Linda Zoberg IV Trust but reversed the summary judgment against Mae Eisman and others, fi
• Joseph v. Canto, Jr.
  595 So. 2d 1025· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The Canto children were detained by J.B. Ivey and Company employees on suspicion of shoplifting but no merchandise was found. The children sued for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, but the trial court directed verdicts in favor of
• Alvaro Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc.
  934 F.2d 497· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment on the contract claim and the attorney fee award against the plaintiff, but remanded for reconsideration of whether fees should also be assessed against the plaintiff's attorney.
• Dean v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
  885 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 18×
• Frazier v. King
  873 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The majority found that neither federal nor state claim preclusion rules barred the plaintiff's § 1983 claim. The dissenting judge disagreed with the suggestion that a federal claim preclusion rule could apply.
• Kush v. Am. States Ins. Co.
  853 F.2d 1380· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 18×
  A shareholder cannot bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against an insurer for actions directed at the corporation, as the shareholder lacks standing and such claims are preempted by the Illinois Insurance Code.
• Southland Corp. v. Bartsch
  522 So. 2d 1053· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-04-07 ·cited 18×
  A 7-Eleven store manager caused the arrest of a six-year-old child for shoplifting gum. The child's mother sued for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a jury awarded $40,000 in damages. The appellate court reversed, holding that probable c
• King v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  536 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-15 ·cited 18×
  Charles King and other passengers sued Eastern Airlines for emotional distress and damages under the Warsaw Convention after experiencing an in-flight emergency where all three engines failed. The appellate court held that King stated a valid cause of action for intentional/reckl
• Gilardi v. Schroeder
  833 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to file a timely charge with the state agency in a deferral state bars the plaintiff from invoking the extended 300-day filing period with the EEOC under Title VII.
• Am. States Ins. Co. v. Borbor
  826 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 18×
  An innocent co-insured partner is entitled to coverage under a liability policy for losses caused by a co-partner's willful acts, even if the policy excludes coverage for willful acts, as long as the policy language does not explicitly exclude coverage for 'any' insured.
• Diamond v. Rosenfeld
  511 So. 2d 1031· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-08-05 ·cited 18×
  In this neighbor dispute arising from multiple criminal and civil battery allegations, the court addressed the Rosenfelds' claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Henions and Mrs. Diamond. The court affirmed some
• Taylor v. The Home Ins. Co.
  777 F.2d 849· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of emotional distress was relevant to the issue of whether Taylor was demoted due to age or impaired efficiency, and that the jury's findings of age discrimination were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court vacated the judgment for liqu
• Fiumara v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos.
  746 F.2d 87· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to the prior state court litigation concerning the same transaction and issues.
• Choate v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  715 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 18×
  A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an employer's actions related to a labor dispute is preempted by the Railway Labor Act if adjudicating the claim would require interpreting the collective bargaining agreement.
• Coudert v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis
  705 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a dispute arising from post-termination communications, including statements to exchanges and clients about the reasons for departure, falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement for disputes 'arising out of the employment or termination of employment.'
• Wasserman v. Irwin Wasserman
  671 F.2d 832· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit under the domestic relations exception, as the claims asserted were common law torts not dependent on family status.
• Scheuer v. Wille
  385 So. 2d 1076· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-18 ·cited 18×
  Appellants, the adult children of a deceased woman, sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress after a funeral home embalmed their mother's body in violation of Jewish religious tenets without contacting them or obtaining consent. The court reversed summary judgment ag
• Am. Health Plan, Inc. v. Tully Kostner
  367 So. 2d 276· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-02-13 ·cited 18×
  American Health Plan challenged a discovery order requiring it to disclose names of health plan subscribers whose contracts were terminated for misrepresentation. The court granted certiorari, finding the discovery order was an abuse of discretion that violated privacy rights, la
• Eckenrode v. Life OF Am. Ins. Co.
  470 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 18×
  A beneficiary can recover for severe emotional distress caused by an insurer's outrageous conduct, including bad faith refusal to pay policy proceeds and economic coercion, but punitive damages are not recoverable under Illinois law for this tort.
• Moore v. Greene
  431 F.2d 584· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting original promissory notes after trial, that the intentional infliction of mental distress claim was not time-barred and supported by sufficient evidence, and that one of the libel claims was privileged
• Martinez v. Pavex Corp.
  422 F. Supp. 2d 1284· M.D. Fla.· 2006-03-22 ·cited 17×
  The court denied summary judgment on hostile work environment claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding severity, pervasiveness, and employer liability, but granted summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and neglig
• Grimsley v. The Inverrary Resort Hotel, Ltd.
  748 So. 2d 299· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-09-01 ·cited 17×
  Grimsley appealed the trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement with Inverrary Resort Hotel. The court reversed, holding that no binding settlement existed because the parties failed to reach a meeting of the minds on the essential term of general releases, even though
• Food Lion, Inc. v. Clifford
  629 So. 2d 201· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-11-12 ·cited 17×
  Food Lion and its loss prevention agent were sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress after investigating and reporting an employee's theft of $10 of deli food. The court reversed the jury verdict, holding that the defendants' lawful exercise of both civil remedies u
• McCORMICK v. AT & T Techs., Inc.
  934 F.2d 531· 4th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 17×
  State law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and negligence in the care of a bailment are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA if their resolution requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. OF Am.
  924 F.2d 1161· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 17×
  A plaintiff who fails to assert an available alternative basis for federal jurisdiction (like diversity) for related state-law claims in an initial federal action, after the federal claim is dismissed on the merits, is precluded from bringing those state-law claims in a subsequen
• Kirker v. Orange Cnty. & Shashi B. Gore, M.D.
  519 So. 2d 682· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-01-28 ·cited 17×
  A mother appeals the dismissal of her action against a medical examiner and Orange County for removing her deceased child's eyes without consent and falsifying autopsy records. The court reversed the dismissal as to the medical examiner, holding that the complaint stated a valid
• Tom U.U. Okure v. Javan Owens and Daniel G. Lessard
  816 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations for general personal injury actions in New York, N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214(5), applies to all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Wilson v. Garcia.
• Bradshaw v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  805 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 17×
  The court reversed the dismissal of the § 1981 claim, dismissed the Title VII claim for lack of jurisdiction, and affirmed the dismissal of the state tort claims.
• Sonsearaharay Polk v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  801 F.2d 190· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the administrative finding of misconduct precluded the plaintiff's claim for discharge without just cause, but reversed and remanded the retaliatory discharge claim based on the MCRC visit due to erroneous jury instructions.
• Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States
  231 F. Supp. 2d 1187· M.D. Fla.· 2002-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Plaintiffs' claims for loss of consortium and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress were not cognizable under Florida law, and thus granted summary judgment for the Defendant.
• Henderson v. Ayoade Idowu and Muyinat Idowu
  828 So. 2d 451· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-10-16 ·cited 16×
  A non-signatory supervisor can enforce an arbitration agreement signed by an employee, and the employee's tort claims related to employment termination are arbitrable under that agreement.
• Vamper v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  14 F. Supp. 2d 1301· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations stated claims for race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981, and that it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Vargas v. Peltz
  901 F. Supp. 1572· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fabrication of evidence and perjury constituted a fraud on the court, warranting dismissal of the action with prejudice.
• Bryan v. James E. Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  33 F.3d 1318· 11th Cir.· 1994-10-04 ·cited 16×
  A Florida hospital terminated a physician's clinical staff privileges after a lengthy peer review process prompted by the physician's pattern of disruptive and unprofessional behavior spanning fourteen years. The physician sued for breach of contract and antitrust violations, and
• Colgan v. Fisher Sci. Co.
  935 F.2d 1407· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the limitations period for filing an age discrimination complaint begins when a reasonable employee would be aware that a negative performance evaluation could have a significant detrimental impact on their employment status.
• Petrini v. Howard
  918 F.2d 1482· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 16×
  The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) preempts federal employees' Bivens and state law tort claims arising from personnel actions covered by the CSRA's remedial scheme. Claims outside CSRA scope may be actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
• Braley v. City OF Pontiac
  906 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Braley's federal claims were moot because he had received substantial satisfaction in state court for the same underlying injuries, and he failed to state a constitutional claim actionable under § 1983.
• Harris A. Grote v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  905 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they are arguably governed by the collective bargaining agreement and are founded on a wrongful termination claim. The court also held that the Federal Employers' Liability A
• Sheehan v. United States
  896 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 16×
  A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not automatically excluded from FTCA coverage by the "assault" exception, and FECA does not compensate for purely emotional distress, thus allowing judicial review.
• Anne E. Spencer v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  894 F.2d 651· 4th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the presumption of quid pro quo sexual harassment was not rebutted because the employer's key witness's testimony regarding promotion paperwork was not credible.
• Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co.
  873 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 16×
  State law claims arising from a collective bargaining agreement are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA, but claims based on independent state rights, such as age discrimination, are not.