McDaniel v. Gile
California Court of Appeal
230 Cal. App. 3d 363, 281 Cal. Rptr. 242 (1991)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Patricia Gile (defendant) retained attorney James McDaniel (plaintiff) to represent her in her action for marital dissolution. According to Gile, McDaniel had her complete a document that included intimate details about her personal and sexual life, grabbed her and kissed her in a room in the courthouse, called her and made sexually suggestive remarks, and failed to be available and represent her interests after she refused to have sexual relations with him. When Gile needed a restraining order against her husband, McDaniel ignored her telephone calls, and when he did respond, McDaniel led Gile to believe that he would only be available to her as an attorney if she gave him sexual favors. McDaniel told a friend of Gile’s whom Gile had brought to a meeting that his female clients were very vulnerable and could get better service from him if they went to bed with him. Gile settled her case without McDaniel’s assistance. McDaniel sued Gile for unpaid legal fees. Gile cross-claimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication on Gile’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress because McDaniel’s conduct was not outrageous as a matter of law. Gile appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grignon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
