Element at issue: Extreme and Outrageous Case name Element met?

Courts reasoning Key facts used by court Compare/distinguish our facts?

Durham v. McDonalds Restaurants of Oklahoma

Yes

The test is whether the conduct is so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and is atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Id. at 33, 956 P.2d at 901. In the case at hand, we find that the manager's use of f...ing retard in addressing a minor employee who is filled with apprehension after being denied permission to take anti-seizure medication may reasonably be regarded as meeting this test. Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc., 2011 OK 45, 256 P.3d 64, 67

The use of the Fucking retard after denying the medication.

Refusal to allow P to take anti-seizure medication and calling P a fucking retard makes it Extreme and outrageous. The reassurance alone that the dress would be finished and it not being finished is only one part of the stress if the dress itself was just not finished and was not given to the bride on the wedding day then it would be one thing; but it was given incomplete and the embarrassment of the wardrobe malfunction.

Warren v. U.S. Specialty Sports Assn

No

Cox's decision to require the Outlaws to forfeit a game after an official complaint was lodged against the team is not conduct that is so extreme and outrageous as to meet the standard for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cox's actions did not so totally exceed the bounds of acceptable behavior that, upon a recitation of the facts, an average member of the community would exclaim outrageous. Warren v. United States Specialty Sports Ass'n, 2006 OK CIV APP 78, 138 P.3d 580, 586 We do not find an entire absence of proof as to whether Craig's conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageousness to warrant submission of that issue to the jury. We conclude the trial court properly denied Craig's motion for directed verdict on this element of

All of Cox decision even if you take into account all the facts in favor of the P, it would not be enough to warrant severe and outrageous.

The forced forfeit is in light of an official complaint lodged against the team. These situations arise in sports and as forms of punishment for wrongful acts. It is more common than giving a bride an unfinished dress which sets her up for a wardrobe malfunction at her weddingthis is highly uncommon and seems more retributive instead of an objective punishment for violation of a rule in a sporting event.

Computer Publications v. Welton

No

There was not sufficient evidence to show that the behavior was severe and outrageous. So it was not that the

Unlike Computer Publications v. Welton theres plenty of evidence the constant reassurance that the

the tort. Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton, 2002 OK 50, 49 P.3d 732, 736

behavior was NOT severe and outrageous but that there was insufficient evidence.

dress would be finished on time, the promise that it would be complete and in the dressing room on the day, the delay of the wedding dress on the wedding day, and the incomplete dress itself is evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct. Similar to Joffe, Vogues actions were inferred to be of a personal vendetta, it is unprofessional and out of character for someone of her status to present a client with a dress that she assured would be ready and ready to wear when it clearly was not.

Joffe v. Vaughn

Yes

Under these circumstances, we find Pamela presented sufficient evidence of the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to withstand Appellants' motions. Joffe v. Vaughn, 1993 OK CIV APP 169, 873 P.2d 299, 303 We need only consider whether the allegations of defendants' conduct may reasonably be regarded as sufficiently extreme and outrageous to meet the 46 standards. We believe they may reasonably be so regarded. That rational people might differ as to whether plaintiff's allegations may reasonably be regarded as outrageous is demonstrated by the split decision in this case by the Court of Civil Appeals. Where reasonable people may differ on this issue, Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24, 956 P.2d 887, 902

Personal vendetta, concocted a plan to get rid of Robert and set out to discredit Robert.

Miller v. Miller

Yes

To pass the dismissal or SJ the claim must at least convince some reasonable people that it might be extreme and outrageous behavior that causes emotional distress, and it caused a split decision in the Court of Civil Appeals which means there were reasonable people that differedtherefore it meets the standard.

Misrepresentation of fatherhood is pretty severe, and it could be split decision depending on who you ask, and that was all it took to get it past SJ. Just with our facts it is a distressed bride, if you ask any reasonable man woman you would get a split decision on this.