Sustin v. Fee’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Jackson v. City of Columbus (1999), Welling v. Weinfeld (2007)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 58 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 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. · Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. · Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. Secretary of State · 45 Ohio App. 2d 203 - Maddox v. Astro Investments · 56 Ohio App. 2d 109 - Dalton v. Hysell
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.
“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 invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) One who invades the right of privacy of another is subject to liability for the resulting harm to the interests of the other. (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.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a motion for a directed verdict is entered, what is being tested is a question of law; that is, the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. This does not involve weighing the evidence or trying the credibility of witnesses; it is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and assumes the truth of the evidence supporting the facts essential to the claim of the party against whom the motion is directed, and gives to that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences from that evidence.”
1 later decision 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.