154 Or. App. 397 - Bennett v. Baugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general rule in Oregon is that a person cannot recover for emotional distress in the absence of a physical injury. Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center, 312 Or. 17, 22-23 , 816 P.2d 593 (1991). Physical injury is not required, however, in three exceptional circumstances: (1) there is a specific intent to inflict emotional distress; (2) there is intentional misconduct by a person in a position of responsibility and with knowledge that is would cause “grave distress;” or (3) there is conduct that, even if negligent, infringes upon a “legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress.” Id. See generally Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or.App. 607, 614 , 941 P.2d 602 (1997) aff'd. on other grounds, 327 Or. 9 , 956 P.2d 960 (1998). As to the third exception, “the critical inquiry becomes whether the kind of interest invaded is of sufficient importance as a matter of policy to merit protection from emotional impact.” Hilt v. Bernstein, 75 Or.App. 502, 515 , 707 P.2d 88 (1985)(reu den. 300 Or. 545 [ 715 P.2d 92 ] (1986)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 815 F. Supp. 2d 1162 - Giulio v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC