The courts historically have viewed mental and emotional injuries with suspicion. In attempting to ensure that claims of mental/emotional injuries brought to trial are genuine, most courts require that plaintiffs meet special standards unique to this area of the law. Some standards are artificial, however, in that they refer to factors not directly related to the injury claimed. Further, like tort law in general, the development of these legal standards has occurred in the absence of empirical data. In this initial study 111 Arizona trials litigating claims of mental/emotional injuries were examined. General characteristics describing the litigants, the claimed injuries, the use of expert witnesses, and resulting verdicts are reported. Data was not found to indicate that the artificial standards are warranted. The effects that the artificial standards had upon claims pursued at the trial court level are presented. Factors that influenced trial outcomes are discussed.