bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, “Outrageous!” [14] Id. The question of what amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct depends in part on prevailing cultural norms and values, and “[i]n the appropriate case, the question can be decided as a matter of law.” Id. This is the case here. [15] McCollough argues that Bryant’s conduct in failing to thoroughly investigate the incident, leading others to believe that he had fully investigated the incident when he had not, and in directing that McCollough’s statement be altered so that i Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Because we conclude as a
holding that title to land vests in decedents heirs not in his administrator holding decedents remains are not property and the coroner and the coroners employees have no mandatory statutory duty or common law duty to treat human remains as if they were operating a mortuary or crematory holding that evidence that decedents second wife secretly decided to disinter decedents remains rather than maintain a grave with a headstone pursuant to an agreement with family members sufficiently established that wifes actions were deliberate and extreme and outrageous for purposes of establishing an iied claim holding that executor owed no legal duty under negligence theory to decedents sons who claimed bank accounts upon her death under a right of survivorship but were not beneficiaries of any of decedents property under her will holding that decedents daughter was necessary party to maryland wrongful death action