Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Cartoon 8 of 26
Judicial Jeopardy: The Case That Vanished
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Panel 1: JUDGE MILLER • SIX MONTHS EARLIER
Quiz-show gavel host holds open a personified lawbook labeled CAFFERTY, pointing to a large blue screen labeled KNOWN VULNERABILITY. A generic adult litigant contestant listens.
Gavel host: This case says knowing someone is vulnerable can matter.
Panel 2: SIX MONTHS LATER
The same host holds a new cue card. Same Cafferty book remains prominently on his desk. Blue clue screen displays the later contradiction.
Board text: No supporting case for this version of her claim.
Panel 3
Litigant contestant buzzes and points toward the book on the host's desk.
Contestant: What is Cafferty—the case you used before?
Panel 4
Cafferty book waves both white-gloved arms from the very same desk, directly in front of the gavel host's face.
Lawbook: I’m still on your desk!
Artwork caption: Imagined game-show dialogue. Sources in review guide.
Behind the cartoon
Marie Stevenson sued Sean Stevenson, her husband Craig’s adult son, alleging that he repeatedly contacted her estranged father despite knowing it caused severe emotional distress. Judge Kevin M. Miller cited Cafferty, a Minnesota emotional-distress decision, in his December 6, 2022 discussion of Sean’s knowledge of Marie’s vulnerability. His June 16, 2023 dismissal did not discuss that case when saying no cited or discovered case sustained the particular father-contact theory he described. The Cafferty book waves from the same desk as the later no-supporting-case clue.
Underlying records
- December 6, 2022 order, Stevenson Doc. 366p.36: cites Cafferty in discussion of Marie's peculiar susceptibility and Sean's knowledge
- June 16, 2023 order, Doc. 429 — contact chronology and emotional-distress analysis excerpts (PDF)Selected original p. 28 passages, on excerpt PDF p. 2: the court’s formulation of the claim and its statement that no cited case sustained an emotional-distress claim on that theory. Related reasoning and the p. 32 holding continue on excerpt PDF pp. 2–3.
- Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc., 375 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. App. 1985)Justice-Denied reading edition p. 5: known-susceptibility discussion; p. 8, footnote 3: knowledge may lower the production burden for outrageousness. Reporter references: 853 and 855 n.3.
- Plaintiffs' summary-judgment opposition memorandum, Stevenson Doc. 394, pp. 39–40 and 42 — documented in Craig Stevenson's filed declarationDoc. 504, printed/PDF p. 12, paragraphs 88–89 identifies Doc. 394 pp. 39–40 and 42 and states that Cafferty was cited four times. Current reporting also states the same brief locator in The Wide Road to Dismissal, paragraph immediately before the March 15 hearing account.
Doc. 366, p. 36, cites Cafferty on known susceptibility. Doc. 429, p. 28, says no cited case sustained the particular estranged-father theory the court described; it does not say Cafferty never existed. Cafferty is a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that recognizes the vulnerability principle and itself affirmed denial of recovery. Doc. 504, p. 12, paragraphs 88–89, identifies the plaintiffs' four citations in Doc. 394, pp. 39–40 and 42.
More record detail
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 56-CV-20-2928: Doc. 366 (December 6, 2022), p. 36; Doc. 429 (June 16, 2023), p. 28; Doc. 504 (July 26, 2024), p. 12, paragraphs 88–89, identifying Doc. 394, pp. 39–40 and 42. Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc., 375 N.W.2d 850, 853, 855 n.3 (Minn. App. 1985).
