Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Swapp Law, PLLC
District Court, D. Utah
1Opinion of the Court
1. An intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of plaintiff, or his private affairs;
2. With respect to the matter or affair which plaintiff claims was invaded, that plaintiff had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy;
3. The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
4. That the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of damage to plaintiff.
Doe v. Gonzaga Univ. , 143 Wash.2d 687, 24 P.3d 390, 399 (2001), rev'd on other grounds , 536 U.S. 273, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) ; see also Mark v. Seattle Times, 96…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Mark v. Seattle TimesWashington Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Seattle v. McCreadyWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. McKinneyWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. McKinneyWashington Supreme Court · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. GelshenenDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2019