Source: http://library.nevadalaw.info/law_library/Intentional%20Infliction%20Of%20Emotional%20Distress%20Tort%20Of%20Outrage%20Nevada.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:08:01+00:00

Document:
3. Defendant’s conduct is the actual or proximate cause of plaintiff’s emotional distress.
Switzer v. Rivera, 174 F. Supp.2d 1097, 1109 (D. Nev. 2001); Hirschhorn v. Sizzler Rest. Int’l, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1393, 1401 (D. Nev. 1995); Candelore v. Clark Cty. Sanitation Dist., 752 F. Supp. 956, 962 (D. Nev. 1990); Luckett v. Doumani, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005); State v, Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 18 Nev. 140, 42 P.3d 233 (Nev. 2002); Olivero v. Lowe, 995 P.2d 1023, 1025 (Nev. 2000); Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 15 Nev. 372 (2000); Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 14 Nev. 1 (1998); Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1998); Star v. Rabello, 97 Nev. 124, 625 P.2d 90 (1981); Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 111 Nev. 735, 747, 896 P.2d 469, 476 (1995). A third party who observes the outrageous behavior may also recover for emotional distress if the individual is a “close relative of the person against whom the outrage was directed” and the “witnessed acts were not only outrageous but unquestionably violent and shocking.” Star v. Rabello, 97 Nev. 124, 625 P.2d 90 (1981). The outrageous conduct must rise to the level of behavior which is “‘outside all possible bounds of decency’ and is regarded as ‘utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’” Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 953 P.2d 24, 26 (Nev. 1998).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.