Legal Opinion

Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1941PublishedCited by 99 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

This is an action to recover damages caused by the defendants’ invasion of the plaintiff’s right of privacy.

The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and, the plaintiff refusing to amend, entered judgment for the defendants from which this appeal is taken.

The complaint alleges: The defendant, Meier & Prank Company, Inc., is an Oregon corporation engaged in the general mercantile business, as a part of which it maintains an optical department. The defendant, Kenneth C. Braymen, is the manager of the optical department.

On February 28,1939, the defendants, without plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Pavesich v. New England Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Roberson v. . Rochester Folding Box Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Larson v. ChaseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  5. Folsom v. MarshU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1841

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

3Cited by99 opinions

  1. Nees v. HocksOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Billings v. AtkinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Reed v. Real Detective Publishing Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976

94 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