Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Cunningham v. Jensen

2004 Ida. App. LEXIS 83 (2004)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Cunningham v. Jensen

Idaho Court of Appeals

2004 Ida. App. LEXIS 83 (2004)

Facts

Gary and Martha Cunningham (the Cunninghams) (plaintiffs) entered into a contract to purchase real property from Donald and Charolette Jensen (the Jensens). The Cunninghams sued the Jensens and their grandson Arthur Hansen for making misrepresentations to entice them into purchasing the property. The Jensens and Hansen retained the law firm of Brassey, Wetherell, Crawford, and McCurdy (BWC&M) to represent them. During the lawsuit, the Cunninghams sought the imposition of sanctions against BWC&M and a default judgment based on the actions of the Jensens, Hansen, and BWC&M in delaying and stalling the case. The case ultimately was settled, but prior to settlement, the Cunninghams sued the Jensens and Hansen, as well as William McCurdy, J. Nick Crawford, and BWC&M (collectively, BWC&M) (defendants) for abuse of process, conspiracy to abuse process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Cunninghams alleged that the Jensens, Hansen, and BWC&M delayed filing an answer and the taking of depositions, refused to appear for depositions, refused to comply with document-production requests, presented false and perjured testimony and affidavits, refused to comply with the court’s order compelling discovery, and filed motions and pleadings that were not intended to advance the litigation. The district court granted BWC&M’s motion to dismiss the claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Cunninghams appealed, arguing that the sanctions imposed by the court and attorney fees awarded in the previous litigation demonstrated that BWC&M’s actions were extreme and outrageous and that the district court erred in ruling that the proper remedy was court sanctions rather than a separate tort action.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Perry, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership