Legal Opinion

Hall v. InPhoto Surveillance Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 13, 1995No. 4-94-0864PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Green

Plaintiffs Carol Hall (Carol) and Carl Hall brought suit against defendants InPhoto Surveillance Company and its agents, Phillip McLaughlin and Scott Jackson, charging them with "intentional violation of plaintiffs’ right to privacy” predicated on surveillance activities conducted near plaintiffs’ rural residence. Summary judgment was granted to defendants after the trial court found plaintiffs had no evidence to support their claim that the surveillance activities were objectively unreasonable. Plaintiffs appeal from the adverse summary judgment determination. Defendants cross-appeal from…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Michelle Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Company and Buck IsbellCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  2. Lovgren v. Citizens First National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Leopold v. LevinIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Gault v. SidemanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1963
  5. Bureau of Credit Control v. ScottAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Albert J. Muick v. Glenayre ElectronicsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
  2. Lempa v. FinkelAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996
  3. Burns v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007
  4. Burns v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007
  5. Luther v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1995

1 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