Legal Opinion

Sustin v. Fee

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1982No. 81-328PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The gravamen of appellants’ complaint is that appellee’s action was a tortious intrusion upon their right of seclusion. In the leading case of Housh v. Peth (1956), 165 Ohio St. 35, this court recognized a cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon the wrongful intrusion upon a person’s seclusion. In so doing, this court held, at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus:

“1. The right of privacy is the right of a person to be let alone, to be free from unwarranted publicity, and to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. Secretary of StateOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Dalton v. HysellOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Maddox v. Astro InvestmentsOhio Court of Appeals · 1975

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. James G. Jackson v. City of Columbus, Gregory Lashutka, Thomas W. Rice, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  2. Welling v. WeinfeldOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Charvat v. NMP, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  4. Lawlor v. North American Corporation of IllinoisIllinois Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Killilea v. Sears, Roebuck Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985

55 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