Hollander v. Lubow’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 26 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc. (1994), Reuber v. Food Chemical News, Inc. (1991)
8 federal appellate · 26 district · 21 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 · Carr v. Watkins · Schwartz v. Merchants Mortgage Co. · Merchants Mortgage Co. v. Lubow · Beane v. McMullen
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. Caveat: The Institute takes no position on whether there are any circumstances under which recovery can be obtained under this Section if the actor did not know of or act with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the matter publicized and the false light in which the other would be placed but was negligent in regard to these matters.””
4 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 unreasonable invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” [Emphasis supplied.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ajppropriation of the other’s name or likeness” or”
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.