Hazel S. Wilson, Appellant, v. Ralph J. Briscoe, Jr, 946 F.2d 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseBefore SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of appellee's motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order, filed July 31, 1990. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The court's dismissal of the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is affirmed on the ground that appellant has not alleged that the purportedly tortious conduct placed her in physical danger so as to fear for her safety. See Williams v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062, 1067 (D.C.1990) (en banc) .
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.