Swerdlick v. Koch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that individuals “were not entitled, nor could they reasonably have expected, to maintain privacy with respect to those activities taking place outside of their residence in a location - 21 - visible to any passersby”
• noting that the physical symptomatology requirement applies to both types of emotional distress claims
• photographing activities “in plain view of the public” not an unreasonable intrusion, and psychological distress induced by such surveillance not actionable under statute
• finding no intrusion upon seclusion because “defendant took photographs and recorded events that were taking place outside of plaintiffs' house, all of which were in full view of their neighbors and of any other member of the public who may have been present”
• finding no intrusion upon seclusion because “defendant took photographs and recorded events that were taking place outside of plaintiffs' house, all of which were in full view of their neighbors and of any other member of the public who may have been present”
• “[F]or statements to qualify as hbel per se, the publication must impute insolvency, financial embarrassment, unworthiness of credit, or failure in business of a plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).