Cochran v. Glen Chemical Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that filming and broadcasting the last moments of the plaintiffs’ family member’s life did not “rise to the level necessary to satisfy the outrageousness element”
• holding that conduct “likely [to] be considered reprehensible by most people... was not so extreme and outrageous as to satisfy our exceedingly high legal standard” from Murphy
• noting that the New York Court of Appeals found that standard unmet in every case up to that point in which that court had considered it
• finding that New York has only applied the tort to physician-patient relationships
• “[n]oting that ‘the requirements . . . are rigorous, and difficult to satisfy,’ we have commented that, ‘of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims considered by this Court, every[]one has failed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently outrageous’”
• noting the IIED requires “intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).