Harris v. Jones Case Brief
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: A supervisor repeatedly mocked an employee’s stutter. The court officially recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in Maryland but held that the employee’s resulting distress was not legally severe enough to support his claim.
Legal Significance: This case formally adopted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in Maryland, establishing a four-part test based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 and emphasizing the high threshold required to prove “severe” emotional distress.
Harris v. Jones Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, William R. Harris, an employee at General Motors, had a lifelong stutter. His supervisor, H. Robert Jones, was aware of Harris’s speech impediment and his sensitivity to it. Over a five-month period, Jones repeatedly and maliciously mimicked Harris’s stutter more than 30 times. Jones also refused Harris’s request for a transfer, calling him a “troublemaker.” As a result, Harris claimed he was “shaken up,” felt humiliated, and that his pre-existing nervous condition and stutter worsened. Harris had been under a physician’s care for nervousness for six years prior to the incidents with Jones. During the five-month period of harassment, he saw his physician once and was prescribed the same nerve pills he had been taking previously. Harris also acknowledged other stressors in his life, including family problems and conflicts with other supervisors in a generally rough workplace environment. A jury awarded Harris compensatory and punitive damages, but the intermediate appellate court reversed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff present legally sufficient evidence that his emotional distress was severe enough to satisfy the fourth element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
No. The court affirmed the judgment against the plaintiff, holding that while Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mi
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 plaintiff present legally sufficient evidence that his emotional distress was severe enough to satisfy the fourth element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Conclusion
This case establishes the legal framework for IIED in Maryland and serves Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua
Legal Rule
To establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a 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 vel
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals of Maryland formally adopted the independent tort of 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Officially recognizes the independent tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress