Epstein Secrets

9 (1883) (stating that "`[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act'") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is ("not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the court

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

49 (1883) (stating that "`[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal ace") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "'not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the court

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

49 (1883) (stating that "'[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff' who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal ace") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

49 (1883) (stating that "Injo court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] who founds [a) cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act'") (quoting Holman v. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is "not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to