Wolf v. Regardie’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 40 Cal. 4th 683 - Taus v. Loftus (2007), Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc. (1999)
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 12 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 3401 (Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Patterson v. United States · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · Harris v. McRae · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an invasion or interference by physical intrusion, by use of a defendant’s sense of sight or hearing, or by use of some other form of investigation or examination; (2) into a place where the plaintiff has secluded himself [or herself], or into his [or her] private or secret concerns; (3) that would be highly offensive to an ordinary, reasonable person.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“This tort [of intrusion upon seclusion] was not created to protect against ... the garnering of information from third parties, and the culling of facts from public records. Gathering information about [the plaintiff] from third parties, “even if pursued using subterfuge and fraud, cannot constitute ... an intrusion upon [the plaintiffs] solitude or seclusion. The Court has found no authority, nor has [the plaintiff] cited any, which suggests the contrary.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[finvasion of privacy is not one tort, but a complex of four, each with distinct elements and each describing a separate interest capable of being invaded. The four constituent torts are (1) intrusion upon one’s solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) publicity that places one in a false light in the public eye; and (4) appropriating one’s name or likeness for another’s benefit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.