5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christopher F. F. Hopper v. Joseph F. and Bette P. Hoppergreen2 sentences2026It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff . . . .”); see also Hopper, 155 Idaho at 810 , 317 P.3d at 707 (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because, inter alia, “no respondent acted intentionally towards [appellant] or his wife”); Alderson v. Bonner, 142 Idaho 733 , 740–41, 132 P.3d 1261 , 1268–69 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because defendant-voyeur videotaped plaintiff’s roommate in her bedroom, not plaintiff). 2026It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff . . . .”); see also Hopper, 155 Idaho at 810 , 317 P.3d at 707 (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because, inter alia, “no respondent acted intentionally towards [appellant] or his wife”); Alderson v. Bonner, 142 Idaho 733 , 740–41, 132 P.3d 1261 , 1268–69 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because defendant-voyeur videotaped plaintiff’s roommate in her bedroom, not plaintiff). | 1 | 1 |
AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLCgreen2 sentences2020This Court has long held that “if an appellant fails to contest all of the grounds upon which a district court based its grant of summary judgment, the judgment must be affirmed.” AED, Inc. v. KDC Invs., LLC, 155 Idaho 159, 164 , 307 P.3d 176, 181 (2013). 2020This Court has long held that “if an appellant fails to contest all of the grounds upon which a district court based its grant of summary judgment, the judgment must be affirmed.” AED, Inc. v. KDC Invs., LLC, 155 Idaho 159, 164 , 307 P.3d 176, 181 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Becker v. Callahangreen2 sentences2007To prove IIED the plaintiff must prove four elements: “(1) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress must be severe.” Est. of Becker v. Callahan, 140 Idaho 522, 527 , 96 P.3d 623, 628 (2004). 2007To prove IIED the plaintiff must prove four elements: “(1) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress must be severe.” Est. of Becker v. Callahan, 140 Idaho 522, 527 , 96 P.3d 623, 628 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Products
green
2 sentences2012To support an IIED claim, conduct must be more than merely “unjustifiable,” but rather must rise to the level of “atrocious” behavior “beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Edmondson, 139 Idaho at 180 , 75 P.3d at 741 . 2012To support an IIED claim, conduct must be more than merely “unjustifiable,” but rather must rise to the level of “atrocious” behavior “beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Edmondson, 139 Idaho at 180 , 75 P.3d at 741 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Alderson v. Bonner
green
2 sentences2026It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff . . . .”); see also Hopper, 155 Idaho at 810 , 317 P.3d at 707 (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because, inter alia, “no respondent acted intentionally towards [appellant] or his wife”); Alderson v. Bonner, 142 Idaho 733 , 740–41, 132 P.3d 1261 , 1268–69 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because defendant-voyeur videotaped plaintiff’s roommate in her bedroom, not plaintiff). 2026It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff . . . .”); see also Hopper, 155 Idaho at 810 , 317 P.3d at 707 (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because, inter alia, “no respondent acted intentionally towards [appellant] or his wife”); Alderson v. Bonner, 142 Idaho 733 , 740–41, 132 P.3d 1261 , 1268–69 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming summary judgment on IIED claim because defendant-voyeur videotaped plaintiff’s roommate in her bedroom, not plaintiff). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.