119 Ind. App. 643 - Continental Optical Co. v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 138 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equipment Co. (1955), 145 Ind. App. 159 - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis (1969)
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 44 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 112 Cal. App. 285 - Melvin v. Reid · Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance · 35 Cal. App. 2d 304 - Metter v. Los Angeles Examiner · State Ex Rel. Mavity v. Tyndall · 118 Ind. App. 358 - Patton v. Jacobs
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern or the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibility.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“a waiver of the right justifies an invasion of privacy only to the extent warranted by the circumstances which brought about the waiver.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We do not mean to say that the ownership of a negative or print is important when determining the question of whether or not one's right of privacy has been invaded by the unauthorized use of one’s pictorial likeness. Even though the subject of a photograph does not own the negative or have any property rights therein, there are circumstances under which the unauthorized publication of prints therefrom would amount to an invasion of the subject's right of privacy....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pohle v. Cheatham
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.