With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". confirms in her testimony that it was the act of securing the receivership that caused her the distress and humiliation. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Brewerton v. Dalrymple, 997 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex.1999) (citing Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 621-22). “The conduct must be ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Id.; see also GTE Southwest, Inc., 998 S.W.2d at 616 (<HOLDING>). The Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 46 cmt. d

A: holding that to establish estoppel defense to copyright infringement defendant must prove inter alia that plaintiff intended that its conduct would be acted on or so acted that defendant has a right to believe that it was so intended
B: holding that in a fifth amendment challenge pjrovided that conduct is of a sort widely known among the lay public to be criminal  a person is not entitled to clear notice that the conduct violates a particular criminal statute it is enough that he knows that what he is about to do is probably or certainly criminal
C: holding that since appellants suit against attorney was premised solely on ordinary negligence and since appellant did not allege nor attempt to prove extreme and outrageous conduct appellant may not recover damages for emotional distress
D: holding that it is not enough that the defendant has acted with an intent that is tortious malicious or even criminal or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress the conduct itself must be extreme and outrageous
D.