Kloepfel v. Bokor

How courts have described this case

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

• continuing to use the Second Restatement formulation of 4 IIED for the tort of outrage
• distinguishing “torts of intention and torts of negligence” in holding there is no objective symptomatology requirement for intentional infliction of emotional distress
• outrageous conduct generally does not include “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities”
• elements of outrage met when defendant, who was under a no-contact order, threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend, threatened to kill her boyfriend, watched her home, called her home 640 times, called her work 100 times, and called the homes of her male friends numerous times
• medical evidence is required to prove emotional distress
• intentional infliction of emotional distress

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).