Nelson v. Times’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 district · 20 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 871 F. Supp. 2d 6 - Pan Am Systems, Inc. v. Hardenbergh · 257 F. Supp. 2d 288 - Stokes v. Barnhart

2. “Certain policies have been identified by the courts in support of the majority rule. First, the law is wary of actions for injury which is purely emotional; the danger of spurious claims is too great, see Cordell v. Detective Publications, Inc., 419 F.2d at 991 . A major problem is also defining the boundaries of the cause of action brought by a person not referred to or named in the publication or broadcast. In Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d at 1221, the court stated: Section 6521 is in accord with general decisional law which holds this tort to be purely personal. In the context of this particular tort courts, being wary of spurious claims or those purely emotional in character have refused to recognize such actions. Additionally, if actions for violating the right of privacy were allowed by other than the person directly involved, fixing their boundaries and parameters would become an almost impossible task. For example, within what degree of relationship, if any, must a prospective plaintiff be? Might not a very close friend have as serious or emotional reaction as a mother or father? The consensus seems to be that limiting the action to the person directly involved is a sounder judicial policy. We agree. See Cordell v. Detective Publications, Inc., 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir.1969); Kelley v. Post Publishing Co., 327 Mass. 275 , 98 N.E.2d 286, 287 (1951). Id. at 1225. Other courts have stated that the decision should be left to state legislatures, Maritote v. Desilu Productio”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 472 F. Supp. 145 - Justice v. Belo Broadcasting Corp. · 408 So. 2d 619 - Loft v. Fuller

3. “[W]hen it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity. No one has the right to object merely because ... his appearance is brought before the public, since [it is not] in any way a private matter and [is] open to public observation. ... The fact that the defendant is engaged in the business of publication, for example of a newspaper, out of which he makes or seeks to make a profit, is not enough to make the incidental publication a commercial use of the name or likeness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dempsey v. National Enquirer, Inc. · 614 F. Supp. 969 - Benally v. Hundred Arrows Press, Inc.