Lyman v. Huber

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress may . . . be available to some victims” of emotionally abusive behaviors
• stating that medical testimony is not mandatory to establish an TIED claim, although only in rare, extreme circumstances
• stating that medical testimony is not mandatory to establish an IIED claim, although only in rare, extreme circumstances
• stating that medical testimony is not mandatory to establish an IIED claim, although only in rare, extreme circumstances
• stating SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 45 (0) 1947A that medical testimony is not mandatory to establish an TIED claim, although only in rare, extreme circumstances
• stating SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 45 (0) 194Th e that medical testimony is not mandatory to establish an TIED claim, although only in rare, extreme circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).