Allen v. Anger
2011 UT App 19
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Allen obtained a temporary ex parte civil stalking injunction against Anger on November 27, 2007.
- Two hearings were held; Injunction Order entered December 2, 2009, based on Anger’s alleged conduct.
- Anger distributed flyers and operated a website with detailed personal information about Allen and her family to oppose Allen’s parenting decisions.
- Anger supported C.R.’s emancipation petition; C.R. filed emancipation, leading to related juvenile proceedings.
- Anger repeatedly contacted Allen’s children, visited Allen’s home, and entered without permission, despite requests to stop contact.
- The district court concluded Anger intentionally and knowingly committed stalking, issuing a three-year civil stalking injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anger’s conduct violated the 2003 stalking statute for civil relief. | Anger argues there was no repeated, outrageous conduct meeting the statute. | Allen contends Anger’s actions caused emotional distress constituting stalking. | Anger’s conduct did not meet the 2003 statute; no course of conduct established. |
| Whether emotional distress alone suffices to prove stalking under the 2003 statute. | Emotional distress from Anger’s actions supports stalking liability. | Anger contends distress must be accompanied by outrageous conduct or threat. | Emotional distress must be outrageous; distress alone is insufficient to prove stalking. |
| Whether a single outrageous act can support a course of conduct for stalking under the statute. | Any outrageous act may contribute to a stalking course of conduct. | A lone act cannot constitute a course of conduct for stalking; repetition required. | A single outrageous act cannot establish a course of conduct; need at least two acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct.App. 1997) (outlines outrageousness threshold for IIED-like emotional distress in stalking)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (Utah Ct.App. 2006) (stalking requires a course of conduct evaluated in context)
- Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (outrageous conduct standard for IIED-related liability)
- Gulbraa v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 159 P.3d 392 (Utah Ct.App. 2007) (limits on IIED-like claims in intrafamily disputes)
- Cabaness v. Thomas, 232 P.3d 486 (Utah 2010) (cases addressing whether interference with parental rights supports IIED)
- Retherford v. AT&T Communications, 844 P.2d 949 (Utah 1992) (contexts of abusive conduct and emotional distress considerations)
- Nguyen v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 232 P.3d 529 (Utah Ct.App. 2010) (assesses outrageous conduct in different factual settings)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah 2008) (cautions about expanding IIED and emotional distress claims)
- Hatch v. Davis, 147 P.3d 383 (Utah 2006) (rigorous scrutiny of expanding reach of IIED)