Cullison v. Medley Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiff sued for emotional distress from trespass and assault after defendants confronted him in his home, one armed. Court reversed summary judgment, holding emotional distress damages recoverable for intentional trespass without physical impact and that facts supported an assault claim.
Legal Significance: Abrogated Indiana’s “impact rule” for trespass, allowing emotional distress damages without physical injury, and clarified elements of assault regarding apprehension of imminent harm.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dan R. Cullison invited Sandy Medley (16) for a Coke. Hours later, Sandy, her father Ernest, mother Doris, brother Ron, and brother-in-law Terry Simmons confronted Cullison in his mobile home. Cullison had answered the door, returned to dress, and upon re-entering his living room, found all five present. Ernest Medley, on crutches, wore a holstered revolver on his thigh. Cullison testified Ernest repeatedly grabbed for the gun and shook it at him while threatening to “jump astraddle” of Cullison if he did not leave Sandy alone. Cullison feared being shot. Doris Medley allegedly kept her hand in her pocket, leading Cullison to believe she was also armed. No defendant physically touched Cullison. As the Medleys left, Cullison experienced chest pains. Subsequently, Ernest, again armed, allegedly glared at Cullison menacingly in a restaurant. Cullison suffered nervousness, depression, sleeplessness, and sought psychological and psychiatric treatment, which impacted his construction business. He sued for trespass, assault, harassment (construed as invasion of privacy), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), seeking damages for emotional and psychological injury.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims of trespass and assault by finding that the “impact rule” barred recovery for emotional distress and that the defendants’ actions did not constitute an assault as a matter of law?
Yes, summary judgment was improperly granted as to the trespass and assault Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims of trespass and assault by finding that the “impact rule” barred recovery for emotional distress and that the defendants’ actions did not constitute an assault as a matter of law?
Conclusion
This case is pivotal in Indiana tort law for abrogating the impact Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis au
Legal Rule
1. For trespass, damages for reasonably foreseeable emotional disturbance or trauma are Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolor
Legal Analysis
The Indiana Supreme Court significantly modified Indiana tort law concerning recovery for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Indiana Supreme Court abolished the “impact rule” for tortious trespass, allowing