Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Hall v. Post | 372 S.E.2d 711 (1988)

In eighteen ninety, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’s article “The Right to Privacy” discussed the capacity of the press to inflict mental pain on individuals by publicizing private information. The article argued that courts should recognize individual privacy as a distinct right. After the Restatement of Torts recognized privacy rights in nineteen thirty-nine, the majority of jurisdictions followed suit. But the case of Hall versus Post demonstrates the reluctance of some states to fully embrace privacy torts.

In July of nineteen eighty-four, reporter Rose Post wrote a newspaper article titled “Ex-Carny Seeks Baby Abandoned Seventeen Years Ago.” The article followed Adelith Gottschalk as she attempted to locate the biological daughter she and her ex-husband, Clarence Maxon, abandoned as an infant. Adelith told Post the story of her marriage to Clarence and their work with a traveling carnival. When their daughter was four months old, Clarence arranged for her to stay with a babysitter named Mary Hall during a carnival tour. Clarence later informed Adelith that he’d signed papers consenting to the baby’s adoption. The article concluded with Adelith’s appeal for anyone with information about her daughter to contact her. A few days later, the newspaper published a follow-up in which Post stated that as a result of the initial article, Adelith had located her daughter. The article identified the child, Susie Hall, and her adoptive mother, Mary Hall, by name and described an emotional phone call between Mary and Adelith.

The Halls filed claims against Post and the newspaper for invasion of privacy. The Halls alleged that Post’s articles generated significant publicity, forcing them to flee their home to avoid the ensuing media attention. Mary and Susie also both required psychiatric care to treat their emotional distress. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, and the defendants petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for review.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть