Cited by

Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497-98 (1991) (concluding that it would be “grossly unfair” to allow the trial court’s decision on the merits to stand where the decision was based, in part, on a cause of action that the trial court had dismissed prior to trial and that was not pled in the plaintiffs’ complaint).

Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497 (1991) (stating defendant entitled to have case tried and decided on the grounds alleged in the complaint).

Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497-98 (1991) (holding that the trial court erred by awarding judgment on a claim that the plaintiffs neither pleaded in their writ of summons nor raised in a motion to amend their writ).

etween December 30, 2009 and May 12, 2010, he unlawfully removed stockpiled excavated materials from his property without a variance, in violation of the town’s zoning ordinance; (3) imposing civil penalties upon him; and (4) denying his request, made in his motion for reconsideration, for a hearing on his damages, which the town represents he did not claim in this action, see Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497-98 (1991) (reversing damages award on basis that theory on which trial court groun

Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497-98 (1991) (reversing damages award because the claim on which it was based had not been properly pleaded).

See, e.g., Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 496 (1991) (“Having previously recognized the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, there is no logical reason why we should not now recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”); Patch v. Arsenault, 139 N.H. 313, 319 (1995) (outlining the separate standards for intentional misre

In order to make out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant “by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly cause[d] severe emotional distress to another.” Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 496 (1991) (quotation omitted).

One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.

Although the plaintiff does not specify an equivalent tort for the defendant’s alleged acts, the allegations appear to assert the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 496, 593 A.2d 1158, 1159-60 (1991) (noting that intentional infliction of emotional distress requires “severe” emotional distress).

We have held that one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for that emotional distress.

Further, the court found no evidence of any material misrepresentations in the ex parte *175 petition, and that no rational juror could find that the defendant’s use of the legal system amounted to the extreme and outrageous conduct required to prove the emotional distress claim.

We begin by addressing Hiltz’ argument regarding the allegedly erroneous “theories of liability.” “It is well settled that a defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which the plaintiffs are proceeding and the redress that they claim as a result of the defendant’s actions.” Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497, 593 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1991) (quotation omitted).