CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K-Mart Corp. Store No. 7441 v. Trotti

This case involves an appeal by K-Mart Corporation against a judgment awarding an employee, Billie Trotti, damages for invasion of privacy. Trotti's personal locker, secured with her own lock, was searched by K-Mart management due to suspicion of theft by an unidentified employee. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, citing errors in the trial court's jury instructions regarding the definition of "invasion of privacy" and "mental anguish." Specifically, the lower court failed to include the "highly offensive to a reasonable person" standard for invasion of privacy and improperly allowed "mere embarrassment" as a separate element for damages. However, the court affirmed the jury's findings of invasion of privacy and malice, emphasizing that an employee's use of a personal lock creates a legitimate expectation of privacy.

invasion of privacyemployee locker searchintentional tortexemplary damagesactual damagesmental anguishjury instruction errorTexas appellate lawemployer liabilitywrongful intrusion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

Mark A. D’Andrea sued Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn, alleging multiple claims including invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The court had previously granted summary judgment on all claims except the invasion of privacy claim, which proceeded to trial. After D’Andrea presented his case, Methodist Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted this motion, ruling that the use of D’Andrea’s photograph in the hospital’s brochures was merely incidental to the document's main purpose and thus did not violate New York’s invasion of privacy statute. The court emphasized that the statute narrowly applies only to commercial use, and incidental uses are not actionable.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawCommercial Use of LikenessIncidental Use DoctrineFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)Summary JudgmentPromotional BrochureMedical Residency ProgramRight of PublicityTort Law
References
17
Case No. 01-08-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Robert O'Conor, Jr. v. the Frost National Bank

Robert O'Conor, Jr. appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Frost National Bank and denial of his cross-motion. O'Conor had filed an invasion of privacy counterclaim against Frost for disclosing his Social Security Number (SSN) in financial documents filed with the court as part of Frost's claim for O'Conor's failure to pay a promissory note. O'Conor argued that Frost violated the Social Security Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and common law invasion of privacy, and that his SSN was constitutionally protected. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no private right of action under the Social Security Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code's "court records" exception applied, and no common law invasion of privacy occurred.

Social Security Number DisclosureInvasion of PrivacySummary JudgmentPromissory NoteTexas LawFederal LawConstitutional RightsAppellate ReviewBanking LitigationIdentity Theft Concerns
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. 01-A-01-9509-CV-00407; 95-C-67
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1996

Evelene v. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Company

Evelene N. Stein appealed the dismissal of her wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy claims against Davidson Hotel Company, her former employer. Stein was terminated after a positive random drug test and argued that Davidson's termination policy violated her constitutional and common law rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim, holding that Tennessee's public policy favors drug-free workplaces and no clear public policy opposed drug-test-based termination. Regarding the invasion of privacy, the court found Stein failed to allege sufficient public disclosure of her drug test results. Additionally, the court concluded that Stein had implicitly waived her right to an intrusion into seclusion claim by consenting to the drug test and continuing her employment, thereby affirming the trial court's decision and remanding for any further necessary proceedings.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment-at-WillDrug Testing PolicyPublic Policy ViolationInvasion of PrivacyConstitutional RightsSearch and SeizureEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment Standard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Driscol

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Albert and Marianne Driscol against Allied Adjustment Bureau and Household Credit Services, Inc. for aggressive debt collection practices. The Driscols alleged various causes of action, including unreasonable debt collection, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The appellate court reformed the initial $11.7 million judgment, upholding Marianne Driscol's recovery for invasion of privacy but reversing Albert Driscol's damages due to insufficient evidence of mental anguish. The court also reduced the exemplary damages awarded against both Household and Allied.

Debt Collection PracticesInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAgency LiabilityExemplary DamagesActual DamagesMental AnguishLost WagesFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

This case involves minor plaintiffs, Kelly and Brandon Faloona, and their mother Linda Fredrickson (as next friend), who sued Hustler Magazine. The suit stemmed from the publication of nude photographs of the minors in Hustler, which had initially appeared in an educational text, 'The Sex Atlas', with their mother's consent. The plaintiffs alleged invasion of privacy through false light, public disclosure of private facts, and commercial appropriation. The court granted Hustler's motion for summary judgment, determining that the parental release for the photographs was valid under Texas law and did not require judicial approval. The court concluded there was no invasion of privacy, as the photos were already public, and no false light or commercial appropriation occurred, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Privacy RightsMinorsNude PhotographyParental ConsentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressFalse LightPublic Disclosure of Private FactsCommercial AppropriationSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. 00C-2704; 01C-1873
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P.

Brad Lewis appealed the trial court's dismissal of his libel and false light invasion of privacy claims against NewsChannel 5 and its employees, stemming from a broadcast about alleged police misconduct by Major Carl Dollarhide, Lewis's brother-in-law. The appellate court determined that while the fair report privilege did not shield the defendants, Lewis was a limited-purpose public figure for the reported public controversy. Consequently, Lewis was required to prove "actual malice," meaning the defendants published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The court found no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, upholding the summary judgment. Thus, Lewis's claims for both libel and false light invasion of privacy were dismissed.

LibelFalse Light Invasion of PrivacyPublic Figure DoctrineActual Malice StandardFair Report PrivilegeFreedom of SpeechFreedom of the PressPolice MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1978

Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols

Ruth Ann Nichols and Bobby Lee Nichols sued Memphis Press-Scimitar for defamation and invasion of privacy after an article falsely implied Mrs. Nichols had an adulterous affair, leading to a shooting. The trial court directed a verdict for the newspaper, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying an ordinary care standard and eliminating the need for special damages for imputed adultery. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, adopting the ordinary negligence standard for private individuals in defamation cases against media defendants. It also abolished the common-law per se/per quod distinction for damages and remanded Mrs. Nichols' libel suit for a new trial, while dismissing Mr. Nichols' libel claim and both invasion of privacy actions.

DefamationLibelInvasion of PrivacyFirst AmendmentFreedom of the PressActual MaliceNegligence StandardPrivate FigurePublic FigurePresumed Damages
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

Plaintiff Anna Pearce initiated an action against Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc. and several other defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law Section 51, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled on the motion, granting it partially and denying it in part. The court sustained the claims related to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and invasion of privacy, allowing them to proceed. Conversely, the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination were dismissed.

Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelInvasion of PrivacyMotion to DismissNew York Civil Rights LawOral AgreementsStatute of FraudsImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights Law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 221 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational