1 E.H. Smith 434 - Schuyler v. . Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish (2004), Roberson v. . Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘A privilege may be given the surviving relatives of a deceased person to protect his memory, but the privilege exists for the benefit of the living, to protect their feelings, and to prevent a violation of their own rights in the character and memory of the deceased.’ ” Favish, 541 U.S. at 168-69 , 124 S.Ct. 1570 (citing Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434 , 447, 42 N.E. 22 (1895)). 2 . The Favish Court noted the decedent’s sister suffered similar distress in its underlying case. She was ''horrified and devastated by [a] photograph [already] leaked to the press,” and wrote”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In this class of cases there must be some reasonable and plausible ground for the existence of this mental distress and injury. It must not be tbe creation of mere caprice nor of pure fancy, nor the result of a supersensitive and morbid mental organization, dwelling with undue emphasis upon the exclusive and sacred character of this right of privacy. Such a class of mind might regard the right as interfered with and violated by tbe least reference even of a complimentary nature to some illustrious ancestor without first seeking for and obtaining the consent of his descendants. Feelings that are thus easily and unnaturally injured, and distressed under such circumstances, are much too sensitive to be recognized by any purely earthly tribunal. A proposed act which a court will enjoin because it would be a violation of a legal right must, among other conditions, be of such a nature as a reasonable man can see might and probably would cause mental distress and injury to any one possessed of ordinary feeling and intelligence, situated in like circumstances as the complainant, and this question must always to some extent be one of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.