18 Kan. App. 2d 479 - Finlay v. Finlay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. “The facts in this case show that defendant, to an extent, changed the use of the property. Although the previous owners had raised cattle on the property, defendant made improvements to the pen and began conducting a feedlot type operation. The previous owner had allowed his cattle access to additional pasture; defendant confined his cattle to the 1.8 acre pen for substantial periods of time. Therefore,... the record shows that any change in use occurred only on defendant’s property and not on the surrounding property, thereby negating the element in [the statute] that the agricultural activity be established prior to the surrounding nonagrieultural activity. ... The record also shows that both defendant’s and plaintiffs’ lands have always been used for agricultural purposes. Plaintiffs’ residence is a farm home, located in an agricultural area, not a nonagricultural use which has moved into an agricultural area. From these facts, it is apparent that the [statute’s] stated purpose of protecting agricultural land from the encroachment of nonagricultural activities has no application here. Further, the evidence does not establish that defendant’s land was used for the feeding and raising of cattle prior to the plaintiffs’ property being used as a farm home.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trickett v. Ochs

2. “[M]ay be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiffs room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiffs objection in entering his home. It may also be by the use of the defendant’s senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiffs private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the photograph or information outlined.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 253 F. Supp. 2d 1209 - Lowe v. Surpas Resource Corp.

3. ““§ 652B. INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another, or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable man. § 652D. PUBLICITY GIVEN TO PRIVATE LIFE One who gives publicity to matters concerning the private life of another, of a kind highly offensive to a reasonable man, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy. § 652E. PUBLICITY PLACING PERSON IN FALSE LIGHT One who gives to another publicity which places him before the public in a false light of a kind highly offensive to a reasonable man, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 929 F. Supp. 1362 - Ali v. Douglas Cable Communications