Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 Md. 585 - Beane v. McMullen

Beane v. McMullen’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
4
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

24 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (1995), Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Ass'n (2000)

24 district · 46 state decisions

18019721980199020002010decided

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 Abel v. United States · National Airlines, Inc. v. Stiles · Walker v. Cronin · Walz v. Tax Commission · Carr v. Watkins

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

  1. “[I]njurious falsehood or disparagement [is defined as]... the publication of matter derogatory to the plaintiff's title to his property, or its quality, or to his business in general, or even to some element of his personal affairs, of a kind calculated to prevent others from dealing with him, or otherwise to interfere with his relations with others to his disadvantage.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In all of the types of invasions of privacy, except perhaps ‘(b) Appropriation of the other’s name or likeness,’ reasonableness under the facts presented is the determining factor. We inquire then whether, under the facts of the present case, the Beanes produced legally sufficient evidence from which a jury might conclude that the complaints of the McMullens, already described, were unreasonable....””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““(2) The right of privacy is invaded by— (a) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, as stated in § 652B; or (b) appropriation of the other’s name or likeness as stated in § 652C; or (c) unreasonable publicity given to the other’s private life, as stated in § 652D; or (d) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public, as stated in § 652E.””
    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.