--- title: Selective Use of Legal Sources url: https://justice-denied.org/selective-use-of-legal-sources/ date: 2025-03-16T01:09:35+00:00 modified: 2026-10-29T13:52:41+00:00 lang: en_US --- # Selective Use of Legal Sources ![ChatGPT 4o](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png) ## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis** ### Adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts by the Minnesota Supreme Court for IIED Claims The Minnesota Supreme Court has **not** explicitly adopted the *Restatement (Third) of Torts* for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims. Minnesota courts have traditionally relied on the *Restatement (Second) of Torts* § 46 when analyzing IIED claims, particularly the requirement that the defendant’s conduct must be *extreme and outrageous* and must cause severe emotional distress. In *Dornfeld v. Oberg*, 503 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1993), the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the elements of IIED using the *Restatement (Second) of Torts*. More recent cases, such as *[Langeslag v. KYMN, Inc.](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/langeslag-v-kymn-2003/)*, 664 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2003), have continued to rely on *Restatement (Second) of Torts* § 46. The *Restatement (Third) of Torts* attempts to refine these principles, but there is no definitive ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court that replaces the *Restatement (Second) of Torts* with the *Restatement (Third) of Torts* for IIED claims. ### Significance of Judge Kevin Miller Citing the Restatement (Third) of Torts Instead of the Restatement (Second) of Torts In the summary judgment order, Judge Kevin Miller cites the *Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm* § 46 to justify the dismissal of the IIED claim. His reasoning includes: - **The high standard for “extreme and outrageous” conduct:** He emphasizes that IIED is “sharply limited to cases involving particularly egregious facts” and that it does not extend to insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or trivial oppressions. - **Gatekeeping function:** Judge Miller notes that courts must determine whether conduct “may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery” before allowing a jury to decide. - **Public policy considerations:** He references *Restatement (Third) of Torts* § 46, cmt. e, which states that merely exercising a legal right cannot be actionable as IIED. However, his reliance on the *Restatement (Third) of Torts* is notable because the Minnesota Supreme Court has not formally adopted it for IIED claims. This could suggest that Judge Miller is applying a more restrictive standard than what Minnesota precedent requires. If the *Restatement (Second) of Torts* § 46 were applied instead, the analysis might have allowed for broader interpretations of “extreme and outrageous” conduct. ### Potential Implications 1. **Judicial Overreach or Misapplication of Law?** By citing the *Restatement (Third) of Torts*, Judge Miller may be applying a standard that has not been expressly adopted by Minnesota’s highest court. This could indicate a departure from established precedent and raise questions about whether he properly applied Minnesota law. 2. **Higher Threshold for Plaintiffs** The *Restatement (Third) of Torts* tends to narrow the scope of IIED claims, making it harder for plaintiffs to succeed. By citing it, Judge Miller imposes a stricter standard that may not align with prior Minnesota rulings. 3. **Selective Use of Legal Standards** If Judge Miller has relied on the *Restatement (Second) of Torts* in prior cases but chose to apply the *Restatement (Third) of Torts* in this instance, it could suggest inconsistency in judicial reasoning. ### Conclusion Judge Miller’s decision to cite the *Restatement (Third) of Torts* rather than the *Restatement (Second) of Torts* for IIED claims is significant because it suggests a shift toward a stricter standard—one that the Minnesota Supreme Court has not formally endorsed. This choice may have influenced the outcome of the IIED claim by setting a higher bar for what qualifies as “extreme and outrageous” conduct, potentially to the detriment of the plaintiffs. AI Bias Indicator Score −7 Strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants −7 −10 −5 0 +5 +10 Favors Defendants Neutral Favors Plaintiffs *AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.* *End of AI-generated analysisModel: ChatGPT 4o* AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence. #### Background and Original AI Query – Click to View In the section of his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order dismissing Marie’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim, Judge Miller cited to the Restatement (Second) of Torts three times and the Restatement (Third) of Torts five times. Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze the significance of this usage. The specific query was: > Has the Restatement (Third) of Torts been adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims? What is the significance of Judge Kevin Miller citing to the Restatement (Third) of Torts instead of the Restatement (Second) of torts in the uploaded summary judgment order? ## Related Justice-Denied coverage - [Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress](https://justice-denied.org/distorting-the-law-iied/)