characterizing tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as “narrow” and explaining that “[c]onduet which, though unreasonable, is neither ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency’ in the setting in which it occurred, nor is one that can be ‘regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community’ falls short of having actionable quality”
How later courts described this case
- characterizing tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as “narrow” and explaining that “[c]onduet which, though unreasonable, is neither ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency’ in the setting in which it occurred, nor is one that can be ‘regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community’ falls short of having actionable quality”
- explaining Rule 10(c) and a motion to dismiss is not converted to a motion to summary judgment by attaching thereto a document which plaintiff had incorporated by reference in plaintiff's petition
- noting that there is a “difference between interference with a prospective economic advantage and with contractual or business relations”
- “A conspiracy between two or more persons to injure another is not enough; an underlying unlawful act is necessary to prevail on a civil conspiracy claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting.
¶ 1 I must respectfully dissent to the use of this Court’s Prerogative writ power to halt proceedings in the trial court, which has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the lawsuit. The writ is issued solely on the basis of the allegations contained in the trial court pleadings, particularly an amended petition. I would assume jurisdiction in this matter, however, solely to address the venue issue of whether or not Oklahoma should adopt the “single publication rule”. With the advent of mass publication and wide spread distribution of published materials, we should re-examine Oklahoma’s “multiple publication rule”, which would permit the action in this case to be filed in numerous counties of the state. Has the “multiple publication rule” become archaic? If so, then a prerogative writ might properly issue.