Legal Opinion · Dissent

Richer v. Poisson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 11, 1995No. 92-CV-0436-TM; CA A83923Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff Lee Richer’s claim for malicious prosecution, but write separately on that claim to emphasize what I believe to be the correct analysis of it. I dissent from the decision to reverse the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to state a claim.

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are well established in Oregon. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts on which a factfinder could find

“that the defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hall v. May Department Stores Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Rogers v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Whelan v. Albertson's, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  4. Humbert v. KNUTSONOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Paulsen v. Continental Porsche Audi, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1980

2 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