Legal Opinion

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1976No. 75-995PublishedCited by 96 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteen, J.

The complaint in this case claimed that “the defendant showed and commercialized the film of * * * [plaintiff’s] act without his consent and such conduct by the defendant was unlawful appropriation of plaintiff’s professional property.” Appropriation is a well-recognized branch of the more general tort of interference with the right of privacy. In Housh v. Peth (1956), 165 Ohio St. 35, *226133 N. E. 2d 340, this court affirmed the principle that each individual has a legally protected' right of privacy. In paragraph two of the syllabus of that case, the court held that:

“An actionable invasion…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Winters v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Time, Inc. v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Bridges v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1941

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Joyce v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Etw Corporation v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. Wiltberger v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Sustin v. FeeOhio Supreme Court · 1982

91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API