P was an employee of a liquor store that was robbed by two masked black men. P witnessed the fatal shooting of a fellow employee. The police department released its report to the press, giving details of the robbery, including P's name and address. D published a front-page article and identified P as a witness and printed his address. The two suspects were still at large. P sued under intentional infliction of emotional distress. P claimed he has been in constant fear, has been forced to change his residence repeatedly, has become suspicious of all black persons and has been under the care of a psychiatrist. P contends D's publication of his name and address constituted outrageous conduct because Ds knew or should have known the killers were still at large. The judge gave D summary judgment.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.