Legal Opinion

Mau v. Rio Grande Oil, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 31, 1939No. 21192-SPublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ST. SURE, District Judge.

This is an action in tort invoking the right to privacy, or what Judge Cooley called the right “to be let alone.”

Plaintiff, employed as a chauffeur, was, on March 22, 1937, held up by a robber and shot, suffering serious injury. His nerves received a severe shock, and as a result of the encounter he became “mentally ill, nervous and distraught.” Mere mention of the shooting caused acute nervous attacks. On and prior to August 4, 1938, defendant Rio Grande Oil, Inc., a corporation, was engaged in producing through the radio facilities of defendant Columbia Broadcasting…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Melvin v. ReidCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Reed & Barton Corporation v. MaasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1934
  4. Boston &. M. R. R. v. BreslinCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Albert Ettore v. Philco Television Broadcasting Corporation, Clayton, Inc. & Chesebrough Manufacturing Company, ConsolidatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
  3. Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Bertha Kaufman v. Western Union Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  5. Leverton v. Curtis Pub. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951

17 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