WJLA-TV. v. Levin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that of the common law torts for invasion of privacy the Virginia General Assembly only codified misappropriation of name or likeness for commercial purposes, implicitly excluding invasion of privacy torts recognized in other jurisdictions
• noting that a plaintiff may rely upon statements made before his actual identification, so long as such statements were made by the same defendant concerning the same subject or event over a short period of time
• noting that a plaintiff may rely upon statements made before his actual identification, so long as such statements were made by the same defendant concerning the same sub- ject or event over a short period of time
• station “told its viewers to watch this broadcast to find out what the ‘Dirty Doc’ had done to his patients”
• under Virginia law, plaintiff who alleges that defendant make unauthorized use of plaintiffs name in a context that is false and offensive is limited to proving defamation
• if allegations are presented as fact, then they fall outside the realm of protected opinion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).