Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Tulsa Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: Steve R. Kitchell, pro se

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendant on intentional infliction of emotional distress theories claiming damages in excess of $10,000.00.

Plaintiffs claimed that the elected officers of Hunter's Pointe erected and maintain a street sign erroneously designating portions of the property as being a continuation of the private streets within Hunter's Point that caused visitors to trespass on Plaintiff's property.

The signage caused numerous personal to go on Plaintiffs' property without Plaintiffs' permission endangering the comfort, repose, health and safety of the Plaintiff's as well as Plaintiffs' family members, guests and invitees.

Plaintiffs' asked the defendants to remove the signs but they failed and refused to do so.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant Ketchell slandered the title to Plaintiff's property.

To establish a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove extreme and outrageous conduct done intentionally or recklessly by the defendant which resulted in severe emotional distress in the plaintiff. Kraszewski, at ¶ 14, citing Breeden v. League Services Corp., 1978 OK 27, ¶ 12, 575 P.2d 1374, 1377--78. Liability for the tort has only been found where the offending conduct "has so totally and completely exceeded the bounds of acceptable social interaction that the law must provide redress." Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24, ¶ 33, 956 P.2d 887, 901. The trial court must act as a gatekeeper to ensure that only valid claims reach the jury. Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton, 2002 OK 50, ¶ 16, 49 P.3d 732, 737. Nothing in Plaintiffs' Petition alleges conduct on the part of Driver's Parents which would be sufficient to show intent or outrageousness.

Outcome: 1-2022

WALL, CAROLINE: MATTER COMES ON FOR FURTHER TRIAL STATUS HEARING AND DEFENDANT'S OPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL SET 11/28/22; HEARING CONDUCTED ON THE RECORD WITH COURT REPORTER ABBEY YODER; PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL E. HUFF AND MARIA K. HUFF APPEAR IN PERSON AND WITH COUNSEL THOMAS E. BAKER AND RONALD D. CATES; DEFENDANT STEVE R. KITCHELL APPEARS IN PERSON, PRO SE, ON HIS COUNTERCLAIMS; ATTORNEY BRYNNA PHILLIPS APPEARS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STEVE R. KITCHELL IN DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS; COUNSEL ANNOUNCE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ARE SETTLED; COURT PROCEEDS TO CONDUCT TRIAL STATUS HEARING; COURT HEARS SWORN TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT STEVE R. KITCHELL, PRO SE, AS TO STATUS OF HIS COUNTERCLAIMS AND HIS REQUEST TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL FOR 3-6 MONTHS AND TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT FURTHER DISCOVERY; AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 AM THE COURT ANNOUNCED A SHORT RECESS AND RECALLED ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL TO RETURN TO COURT AT 11:20 AM; THE COURT FINDS STEVE R. KITCHELL FAILED TO RETURN TO THE COURTROOM WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COURT; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINED; COURT DIRECTS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO PREPARE A JOURNAL ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST STEVE R. KITCHELL, PRO SE, ON THE DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND SUBMIT TO COURT'S INBOX; COURT STRIKES MATTER FROM THE JURY TRIAL DOCKET OF 11/28/22.

1-2022

WALL, CAROLINE: FINAL JUDGMENT SIGNED; JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS; PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY TO FILE AND SERVE COPIES.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: