Kuhn v. Hillson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that New York has statutory invasion of privacy law that does not afford recognition of common law false light
• holding that New York has statutory invasion of privacy law that does not afford recognition of common law false light
• holding that New York has statutory invasion of privacy law that does not afford recognition of common law false light
• stating that the conduct must “go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”
• noting that every intentional infliction of emotional distress claim considered by the New York Court of Appeals has failed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently outrageous
• refusing to extend the right to privacy as it is governed exclusively by N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50, 51

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).