first, and then turn to the tort claims, apparently has been successful in Maryland. In Gordon v. Gerhold, 90 Md.App. 360, 600 A.2d 1194 (1992), Ms. Gerhold filed a complaint for divorce when her husband was arrested and charged with conspiring to murder her. Id. at 362, 600 A.2d 1194. Subsequently, she proceeded against him in a tort action, suing for damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and other torts. Id. at 363, 600 A.2d 1194. The appeal before this Court pertained to issues other than the divorce and subsequent tort suit, but the fact that the two suits proceeded without comment suggests that the tort trial may, in some circumstances, follow a suit for divorce. See, e.g., Koepke v. Koepke, 52 Ohio App.3d 47, 556 N.E.2d 1198, 1200 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Stuart v. Stuart, 143 Wis.2d 347, 421 N.W.2d
recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute holding that husband should have been allowed to pursue tort action against wife for intentional infliction of emotional distress independent of divorce action recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress