Legal Opinion

Heiner v. Moretuzzo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1995No. 94-726PublishedCited by 79 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The question before us is whether Ohio law currently recognizes the right of a plaintiff to maintain a cause of action for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress where the defendant’s negligence produced no actual threat of physical harm to the plaintiff or any other person. The trial court and court of appeals answered this question in the negative. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

We begin our discussion with an overview of the scope and limitations of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Historically, the law in this…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Gallimore v. Children's Hospital Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. MuethingOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. High v. HowardOhio Supreme Court · 1992

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by79 opinions

  1. Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Goldfuss v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Anderson v. St. Francis-St. George Hospital, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Verinakis v. Medical Profiles, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1999
  5. Doe v. SexSearch. ComCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008

74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API