114 Ga. App. 367 - Cabaniss v. Hipsley’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Powell v. State (1998), Tana v. Dantanna's (2010)
14 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Peck v. Tribune Co. · Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance · Cason v. Baskin · Brown v. Matthews · Barber v. Time, Inc.
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The false and libelous reports published and distributed * * * have invaded plaintiff’s right to privacy by placing him in a false light in the public eye. * * * ****** “* * * [T]he inclusion of such derogatory information as a ‘credit report’ constitutes invasion of plaintiff’s right to privacy as (1) an unwarranted intrusion into plaintiff’s private affairs; and (2) unwarranted public ■disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]ublic disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff[,] ...: (a) the disclosure of private facts must be a public disclosure; (b) the facts disclosed to the public must be private, secluded or secret facts and not public ones; (c) the matter made public must be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities under the circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“His participation was merely passive and his magazine Gay Atlanta was merely the conduit through which the advertising and publicity matter of customers was transmitted by Playboy Club to the public. The appropriation of the plaintiffs photograph did not inure to his benefit, use or advantage, but to that of his advertiser. A different question might be presented had the evidence shown that Cabaniss used the advertisement of the Atlanta Playboy Club, with its photograph of the plaintiff, to publicize or advertise his magazine. The evidence did not show however, that any advantage accrued to Cabaniss by any means.”
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.