Werner v. Kliewer’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Kinsella v. Kinsella (1997), Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit (1999)
12 district · 36 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 National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center · Vogel v. W. T. Grant Co. · Munsell v. Ideal Food Stores · Froelich v. Adair
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Does the conduct of Dr. Kliewer meet the necessary tests of § 652B? We think not. Generally, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is based upon the manner in which an individual obtains information. Several cases are illustrative: installation of an electronic listening device in a tenant’s bedroom, Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107 , 206 A.2d 239 (1964); taking pictures and peeking through windows with binoculars, Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, 88 So.2d 716 (La.App.1956); unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s bank account, Brex v. Smith, 104 N.J.Eq. 386, 146 A. 34 (1929). See also Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 117, 854-856 (5th ed. 1984). In addition, the intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Here, there was no information in the letter written by Dr. Kliewer which would not have been obtainable through customary discovery procedures. Appellant does not deny the truth or accuracy of the contents of the letter and it is admitted that there is nothing in the letter which was not already known by her husband. The welfare and future custody of the minor children were at stake and although it would have been preferable to have followed standard court and discovery procedures, the information revealed, under the circumstances of this case, certainly does not rise to the level of being highly offensive to a reasonable person. Mrs. Werner had previously attempted suicide, had contemplated it the day she checked into the hospital, and had indicated that she ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““§ 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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Publicity’ ... means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.”); Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289 , 710 P.2d 1250, 1256 (1985) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.