Norton v. McOsker

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that a plaintiff’s tort and 18 contract claims did not fall under the domestic relation exception although the claims were related 19 to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage
• summarizing that a claim of IIED required proving intentional or reckless disregard of probability of causing emotional distress; extreme and outrageous conduct; causal connection between wrongful conduct and emotional distress; and severe emotional distress
• explaining a federal district court sitting in diversity is governed by state law, which it ascertains by, inter alia, “[r]elying on pronouncements of the state supreme court”
• “Notwithstanding the fact that this case has grown out of the dissolution of an intimate relationship, Norton's claims do not sound in family law, let alone the specific areas of divorce, alimony, and child custody. Instead, Norton brought tort and contract claims.”
• “Generally, courts consider whether the relationship created sufficient vulnerability to create a duty on the part of the defendant to avoid inflicting emotional distress.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).