holding that under South Dakota law, compensation for "negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms" and intentional infliction of emotional distress -11- requires "an extreme disabling emotional response"
How later courts described this case
- holding that under South Dakota law, compensation for "negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms" and intentional infliction of emotional distress -11- requires "an extreme disabling emotional response"
- holding an ordinary citizen can be deemed a public figure for the limited range of issues in which the individual injects himself or is drawn into by a particular controversy
- deciding only that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure; no claim was made that the plaintiff was a general-purpose public figure
- reversing grant of summary judgment on issue of breach of contractual good faith *1036 and fair dealing where high court determined a valid employment contract existed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specially to point out that Issue II (Employee Handbook), Issue III (Conversion of Salary),' and Issue V (Breach of Covenant Within Contract), are all included within Issue I dealing with breach of employment contract. Therefore, damages arising therefrom, if any, should be included in Issue I to prevent double recovery. Greenwood Ranches, 629 F.2d 518 ; Hoovestol, 479 N.W.2d 854 .
I write specially on Issue VII, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, to point out that it includes reckless conduct resulting in emotional distress. Petersen v. Sioux Valley Hospital Ass’n, 491 N.W.2d 467, 469 (S.D.1992); Wangen v. Knudson, 428 N.W.2d 242, 246 (S.D.1988).