Rigazio v. Archdiocese of Louisville

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming dismissal of IIED claim because there was “no evidence from which it could be inferred that the [defendant] intended only to invade [the plaintiff’s] interest in freedom from emotional distress”
• affirming dismissal of IIED claim because there was “no evidence from which it could be inferred that the [defendant] intended only to invade [the plaintiff’s] interest in freedom from emotional distress”
• affirming dismissal of IIED claim because the plaintiff presented “no evidence whatsoever to raise an inference that the [defendants] engaged in any extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly inflicting emotional distress on any of the appellants”
• affirming dismissal of IIED claim because the plaintiff presented “no evidence whatsoever to raise an inference that the [defendants] engaged in any extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly inflicting emotional distress on any of the appellants”
• although defendant’s conduct “could be found to be extreme and outrageous,” plaintiff’s claim for IIED (which Kentucky calls “outrage”) was not allowed where plaintiff could recover damages for emotional distress in action based on assault or battery
• no IIED for sexual abuse of grade school student by parish priest, where the “conduct amounts to the commission of one of the traditional torts such as assault, battery, or negligence for which recovery for emotional distress is allowed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).