McSurely v. McClellan’s Empirical Analysis
753 F.2d 88 · 1985
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably McSurely v. McClellan (1985), Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n (1986)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Rochin v. People of California · Davis v. Scherer · Davis v. Passman
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Communication of embarrassing facts about an individual to a public not concerned with that individual and with whom the individual is not concerned obviously is not a ‘serious interference’ with plaintiff’s right to privacy, although it might be ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unreasonable’. An invasion of a plaintiff’s right to privacy is important if it exposes private facts to a public whose knowledge of those facts would be embarrassing to the plaintiff. Such a public might be the general public, if the person were a public figure or a particular public such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors, if the person were not a public figure.” (Beaumont, 401 Mich, at 104-05 , 257 N.W.2d at 531 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A motion for substitution for a deceased party may be made by any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased party. It is not necessary that a suggestion of death be made on the record before a motion for substitution can be made. The motion for substitution, together with the notice of hearing on the motion, must be served on all the parties to the action, not just the opposing party, as provided in Rule 5. It must be served on persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Thus the procedures of Rule 4 must be followed in serving the motion on the representative or successor of a deceased party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the 'public' to whom the information has been disclosed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.