Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 SO2D 1031 - Diamond v. Rosenfeld

Diamond v. Rosenfeld’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2017

9 state decisions

501987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 467 So. 2d 277 - Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson · Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough · 511 So. 2d 536 - First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo · 471 So. 2d 560 - Collins v. School Bd. of Broward County · 90 So. 2d 908 - Tucker Brothers, Inc. v. Menard

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “d. Extreme and outrageous conduct. ... . It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!" ... . g. The conduct, although it would otherwise be extreme and outrageous, may be privileged under the circumstances. The actor is never liable, for example, where he has done no more than to insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though he is well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Finding liability on one claim does not entitle the respondents to receive the total amount of damages attributable to both theories of liability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.