Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson v. Thomas J. Dodd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 22 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We approve the extension of the tort of invasion of privacy to instances of intrusion, whether by physical trespass or not, into spheres from which an ordinary man in a plaintiff's position could reasonably expect that the particular defendant should be excluded. Just as the Fourth Amendment has expanded to protect citizens from government intrusions where intrusion is not reasonably expected, so should tort law protect citizens from other citizens. The protection should not turn exclusively on the question of whether the intrusion involves a technical trespass under the law of property. The common law, like the Fourth Amendment, should `protect people, not places'". ( 410 F.2d 701 at page 704)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wvit, Inc. v. Gray, No. Cv-95-0547689s (Oct. 25, 1996) · Rogers v. Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel

2. “[w]here information is gathered and arranged at some cost and sold as a commodity on the market, it is properly protected as property. Where ideas are formulated with labor and inventive genius, as in the case of literary works or scientific researches, they are protected. Where they constitute instruments of fair and effective commercial competition, those who develop them may gather their fruits under the protection of the law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtis Manufacturing Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp. · 943 F. Supp. 137 - Anderson v. Century Products Co.

3. “"* * * But in analyzing a claimed breach of privacy, injuries from intrusion and injuries from publication should be kept clearly separate. Where there is intrusion, the intruder should generally be liable whatever the content of what he learns. * * *" ( 410 F.2d 705 ; emphasis added)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fletcher v. Florida Publishing Co. · 319 So. 2d 100 - Fletcher v. Florida Publishing Co.