Connection lost
Server error
Cullison v. Medley Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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.
Cullison v. Medley 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
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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