Legal Opinion

Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Swapp Law, PLLC

District Court, D. Utah

Decided December 17, 2018No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01130PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Mark v. Seattle TimesWashington Supreme Court · 1981
  3. City of Seattle v. McCreadyWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. McKinneyWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State v. McKinneyWashington Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. GelshenenDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API