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
WATT, Justice,
with whom HARGRAVE, Justice, joins, dissenting:
Consistent with my dissenting vote in the companion case, Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127 , 948 P.2d 279 , I dissent to this Court’s assumption of original jurisdiction and pronouncement today based upon the record before us.
I would have declined to assume original jurisdiction; allowed a complete record to be developed below, and if a subsequent appeal taken, then resolve the issues tendered at this time.