Private Law Theory

Introduction:
“… This Article analyzes the highly publicized case of Snyder v. Phelps to illustrate the current status of the tort of Outrage and asks whether courts should continue to recognize this tort or whether, in the name of refinement, the courts have eviscerated the protections and necessity of the tort. It is important to understand the tort’s origin in order to determine if it is still a viable claim or whether this tort has morphed into simply a variation of other torts, such as assault or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Part I of this Article focuses on a discussion of recovery for mental distress prior to the tort’s status as an independent cause of action, discussing five categories of cases from which the tort derived. Part II delves into the evolution of the tort of Outrage, including the history leading up to and culminating in the Restatement (Second)
Section 46 …” (more)

Constance A Anastopoulo and Daniel J Crooks III, “Where’s the Outrage? ‘Outrageous’ Conduct in Analyzing the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the Wake of Snyder v. Phelps” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 19 (2013): 301-343.

First posted 2013-09-09 08:20:25