16 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rubin v. Matthews International Corp.green2 sentences2019They cannot create a factual dispute by merely denying the facts adduced by Defendants and insinuating that additional evidence of outrageous behavior will be presented in proof of their claim at trial. 6 jury verdict on an IIED claim where there was evidence that the defendant, the plaintiffs' adult child, "went far beyond a fair reading of the [lease] agreement by demanding that his parents pay up to $ 3,000 per month in rent for the large apartment and by threatening to evict them[,]" "continued with his demands and threats even though he knew that his parents were aged and ... in poor heal 2019They cannot create a factual dispute by merely denying the facts adduced by Defendants and insinuating that additional evidence of outrageous behavior will be presented in proof of their claim at trial. 6 jury verdict on an IIED claim where there was evidence that the defendant, the plaintiffs' adult child, "went far beyond a fair reading of the [lease] agreement by demanding that his parents pay up to $ 3,000 per month in rent for the large apartment and by threatening to evict them[,]" "continued with his demands and threats even though he knew that his parents were aged and ... in poor heal | 3 | 4 |
Vicnire v. Ford Motor Credit Co.green2 sentences1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r 1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r | 2 | 2 |
Lyman v. Hubergreen2 sentences2021Colo. 2001) (alleged omissions by the defendants "fail to shock the conscience of this court in a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process constitutional sense"); see also Lyman v. Huba, 2010 ME 139 , II 16, 10 A.3d 707 (the Law Court has endorsed the trial court acting as a gatekeeper-meaning, the court may "evaluate an IIED claim to determine whether the facts alleged could reasonably justify a verdict for the plaintiff.") 19Because Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support each element of his cause of action against D .A. 2021Colo. 2001) (alleged omissions by the defendants "fail to shock the conscience of this court in a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process constitutional sense"); see also Lyman v. Huba, 2010 ME 139 , II 16, 10 A.3d 707 (the Law Court has endorsed the trial court acting as a gatekeeper-meaning, the court may "evaluate an IIED claim to determine whether the facts alleged could reasonably justify a verdict for the plaintiff.") 19Because Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support each element of his cause of action against D .A. | 1 | 1 |
Paula Bratton v. Halsey McDonoughgreen2 sentences2018See Bratton v. McDonough , 2014 ME 64 , ¶ 23, 91 A.3d 1050 (vacating judgment on an IIED claim, where the trial court had determined that the evidence did not show extreme and outrageous conduct by a landlord who "allowed a family with young children to live in a house that exposed the children to toxic levels of lead for several years" and did not relocate the family, despite being under a legal duty to do so, for four years after the State declared the house to be a lead hazard); Rubin v. Matthews Int'l Corp. , 503 A.2d 694 , 700 (Me. 1986) (concluding that a complaint alleged "conduct upon 2018See Bratton v. McDonough , 2014 ME 64 , ¶ 23, 91 A.3d 1050 (vacating judgment on an IIED claim, where the trial court had determined that the evidence did not show extreme and outrageous conduct by a landlord who "allowed a family with young children to live in a house that exposed the children to toxic levels of lead for several years" and did not relocate the family, despite being under a legal duty to do so, for four years after the State declared the house to be a lead hazard); Rubin v. Matthews Int'l Corp. , 503 A.2d 694 , 700 (Me. 1986) (concluding that a complaint alleged "conduct upon | 1 | 1 |
Colford v. Chubb Life Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences1998Co. of Am., 687 A.2d 609, 616 (Me.1996) (quoting Rubin v. Matthews Int’l Corp., 503 A.2d 694, 699 (Me.1986)). 1998Co. of Am., 687 A.2d 609, 616 (Me.1996) (quoting Rubin v. Matthews Int’l Corp., 503 A.2d 694, 699 (Me.1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Loe v. Town of Thomastongreen2 sentences1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r 1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r | 1 | 1 |
Finn v. Lipmangreen2 sentences1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r 1998To withstand summary judgment on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must present facts tending to show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from its conduct; that “the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiffs emotional distress; and that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was “so severe that no r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Caldwell v. Federal Express Corp.green1 sentence2000But see Caldwell v. Federal Express Carp., 908 F.Supp. 29, 33 (D.Me.1995) (allowing IIED claim to proceed against employer because the tortious conduct did not arise while the plaintiff was employed by employer). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Curtis v. Porter
green
2 sentences2020In order to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state an IIED claim, Plaintiffs must allege facts regarding the following elements: (1) the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from her conduct; (2) the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered 2020In order to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state an IIED claim, Plaintiffs must allege facts regarding the following elements: (1) the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from her conduct; (2) the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered | 9 | 2016–2024 |
Pamela G. Argereow v. Verne M. Weisberg, M.D.
green
2 sentences2024The Court has no idea what specific conduct allegedly generated the IIED claim and therefore cannot evaluate whether that conduct was "so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency." Argereow, 2018 ME 140 , ,r 27, 195 A.3d 1210 . 2024The Court has no idea what specific conduct allegedly generated the IIED claim and therefore cannot evaluate whether that conduct was "so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency." Argereow, 2018 ME 140 , ,r 27, 195 A.3d 1210 . | 2 | 2020–2024 |
Davis v. Currier
green
2 sentences2024Davis v. Currier, 1997 ME 199 , ,r 6, 704 A.2d 1207 . 2024Davis v. Currier, 1997 ME 199 , ,r 6, 704 A.2d 1207 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Loney Et Ux. v. Denenberg
green
2 sentences2022Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 1 10, quoting Champagne v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 1998 ME 87115 , 71 A.2d 842 . 2022Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 1 10, quoting Champagne v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 1998 ME 87115 , 71 A.2d 842 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gordan v. Cummings
green
1 sentence2021Counts II & III: Emotional Distress Claims The Law Court has established that an employee cannot bring an emotional distress claim against her employer because the claim is barred by the Workers' Compensation Act, which bars "all common law claims that arise out of work-related injuries in the course of employment." Gordon v. Cummings, 2000 lv1E 68, 1112-13, 756 A.2d 942 (holding that plaintiff could not bring IIED claim based upon workplace conduct because the claim is barred by the exclusivity and immunity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act), See also 39-A M.R.S.A. § 104. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
James v. MacDonald
green
2 sentences2000TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE [¶ 14] Betty asserts that she presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Cummingses and Crest interfered with her relationship with GG & F. To succeed on a tortious interference claim, Betty needed to establish (1) “the existence of a valid contract or prospective economic advantage;” (2) “interference with that contract or advantage through fraud or intimidation;” and (3) “damages proximately caused by the interference.” James v. MacDonald, 1998 ME 148, ¶ 7 , 712 A.2d 1054, 1057 . [¶ 15] Betty failed to establish any interference with her relationship with GG & 2000TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE [¶ 14] Betty asserts that she presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Cummingses and Crest interfered with her relationship with GG & F. To succeed on a tortious interference claim, Betty needed to establish (1) “the existence of a valid contract or prospective economic advantage;” (2) “interference with that contract or advantage through fraud or intimidation;” and (3) “damages proximately caused by the interference.” James v. MacDonald, 1998 ME 148, ¶ 7 , 712 A.2d 1054, 1057 . [¶ 15] Betty failed to establish any interference with her relationship with GG & | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.