Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 652E

15 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jews FOR Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp
  997 So. 2d 1098· Fla.· 2008-10-23 ·cited 132×
  The Florida Supreme Court declined to recognize false light invasion of privacy as a distinct tort, holding that it substantially overlaps with defamation and lacks First Amendment protections. The Court affirmed that defamation by implication exists as a valid theory and adopted
• Fudge v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd.
  840 F.2d 1012· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the term 'amazon' as used in Penthouse magazine was constitutionally protected opinion and thus not libelous, and that the publication did not place the girls in a false light or constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Donald B. Rinsley, M.D. v. Brandt
  700 F.2d 1304· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 21×
  The court held that statements in a book, when viewed in context, were either substantially true, opinions, or rhetorical hyperbole, and thus not actionable for invasion of privacy under a false light theory.
• Braun v. Flynt
  726 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the publication of the plaintiff's picture in a sexually explicit magazine, without her informed consent, constituted an invasion of privacy and defamation, and that the plaintiff was a private figure not subject to the 'actual malice' standard. However, the c
• Gannett Co., Inc. v. Anderson
  947 So. 2d 1· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-10-20 ·cited 15×
  The First District Court of Appeal reversed a $18.28 million judgment for Joe Anderson Jr., who sued the Pensacola News-Journal for invasion of privacy under the false light theory. The court held that false light invasion of privacy claims that overlap with defamation are govern
• Rapp v. Jews FOR Jesus, Inc.
  944 So. 2d 460· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-11-29 ·cited 13×
  Edith Rapp appealed the dismissal of her claims against Jews for Jesus arising from a newsletter falsely portraying her as a convert to the organization. The court reversed dismissal of the false light invasion of privacy and negligent supervision claims, but affirmed dismissal o
• Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
  799 F.2d 1000· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a photographic release signed by a mother for her minor children was valid under California law, and that the publication of the children's photographs in Hustler magazine, in the context of book reviews and excerpts, did not constitute an invasion of privacy
• MacHleder v. Diaz
  801 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a false light invasion of privacy claim requires the portrayal to be substantially false and highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that truth is a complete defense.
• Straub v. Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A.
  980 So. 2d 1085· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy, and the trial court erred in dismissing it.
• Mitchell v. Random House, Inc.
  865 F.2d 664· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statements in the book, even if false, were not clearly and unmistakably defamatory under Mississippi law and that the other claims were not cognizable or lacked merit.
• Polin v. DUN & Bradstreet, Inc.
  768 F.2d 1204· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy or violations of the Oklahoma Credit Ratings Act, and thus summary judgment for the defendant was proper.
• Straub v. Gaye Scarpa
  967 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-10-31 ·cited 3×
  Glenn Straub appealed the dismissal of his false light invasion of privacy claim against Gaye Scarpa based on a letter Scarpa sent to homeowners soliciting proxy votes and criticizing budget spending. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the letter neither identified St
• Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A. v. Straub
  3 So. 3d 1187· Fla.· 2009-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal that recognized a false light invasion of privacy tort. The Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's decision, holding that Florida does not recognize this cause of action, consistent with its
• Moore v. The BIG Picture Co.
  828 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that insufficient publicity existed to support a false light invasion of privacy claim, but affirmed liability for misappropriation of name. The court also affirmed lost earnings damages but vacated exemplary damages.
• McGHEE v. Sanilac Cnty. & Sanilac Cnty. Sheriff Dep't
  934 F.2d 89· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-23
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions for the defamation claim, as it was not well-grounded in fact or law, but did not abuse its discretion regarding the false light claim.