Kroeger v Brautigam 2016 Wisc App Lexus 570 Why did the trial court rule that the activities of the defendants (save for one defendant), did not constitute Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? Do you agree with the court's assessment? Consider the elements of IIED when answering the question.

1. Why does the court state that the "extreme and outrageous" requirement sets a high bar for actionable conduct? What policy(s) might be implicated by setting a high bar?
2. The one defendant not originally dismissed was Robert Brautigam. Why would the case go forward against him and not the others? That is, what was different about his actions, as opposed to the action of the other defendants?
3. What other intentional torts could the plaintiffs have been claimed against Robert Brautigam based on his actions? Note: There is at least one and possibly others.
4. The case takes an unusual turn beginning in Paragraph 22 of the case. What did the court see as a potential "civil conspiracy" and why was that important to disposition of the case?