Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 So. 2d 909 - Pack v. Wise

155 So. 2d 909 - Pack v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
4
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Rugg v. McCarty (1970), Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass'n (1985)

1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

110196319701980199020002010decided

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 Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc. · 107 So. 2d 496 - Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York · Gouldman-Taber Pontiac, Inc. v. Zerbst · 118 Ind. App. 358 - Patton v. Jacobs · 80 Ga. App. 708 - Davis v. General Finance & Thrift Corp.

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Whether or not a debt is justly due, the law recognizes a right in a debtor to be free from unreasonable coercion and also to be free from unreasonable violations of his right to privacy in his personal affairs, and the debtor is entitled to general and special damages in tort for violations of his rights in these regards." Pack, supra at p. 912 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Recently, where a creditor telephoned members of a debtor's family in an effort to coerce payment, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that such conduct constituted an actionable invasion of the debtor's right to privacy. Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 . The court reviewed the jurisprudence relating to the question fairly comprehensively, pointing out for example several decisions of other jurisdictions which had held that the mere contacting of a debtor's employer does not necessarily constitute an actionable tort. The court held that a rule of reason should be adopted to balance the interest of the creditor in collecting the debt against the right of privacy of a debtor as to his own affairs. This rule the Alabama court summarized as follows, 132 So.2d 323 , `"a creditor has a right to take reasonable action to pursue his debtor and persuade payment, although the steps taken may result to a certain degree in the invasion of the debtor's right of privacy," but that the debtor has a cause of action for injurious conduct on the part of the creditor which exceeds the bounds of reasonableness.' Thus, assuming that the simple action of contacting a debtor's employer is not actionable in Louisiana as coercive in itself (but see Quina v. Roberts, La.App., 16 So.2d 558 ) it might well be argued that the defendant Wise's actions in writing the initial letter and in following it up with an explanatory telephone call in response to the bank's reply to his in”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"But whatever be the sound rule at common law respecting the libelous character of publications of this kind, it is manifest to us that the issuance of the letter and enclosure in this case, for the obvious purpose and design of forcing a payment by plaintiff, constituted a tort under our law and that plaintiff is entitled to redress even though he was unable to prove special damage. And it makes no difference whether the publication is considered to be libelous or not. It is well settled, even in the common law states, that damages will be allowed for mental anguish suffered by a debtor in cases where the creditor has pursued unseasonable methods in attempting to make collection of his claim. See 33 American Jurisprudence, verbo `Libel and Slander', section 61, pages 79 and 80, 41 American Jurisprudence, verbo `Privacy', section 30, page 947, and a comprehensive note contained in 91 A.L.R., beginning at page 1495, entitled `Mental Anguish due to Collection Methods.' These authorities, which are supported by cases from several states, reveal that, while it is doubtful that writings like the one in the instant case are libelous, yet they are classed as torts for which recovery may be had without proof of particular damage. In some cases, relief has been granted on the ground that the publications were libelous and in others on the ground that there had been an invasion of the plaintiff's right of privacy."”
    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.