green
Positive treatment
0.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Overruled
Hamot v. Telos Corp.
(2×)
The doctrine has been cited in only three Maryland appellate cases: two dissents—Reichardt v. Flynn, 374 Md. 361, 401, n. 11 , 823 A.2d 566 (2003) and Attorney Gen. v. Anne Arundel Co. School Bus Contractors Assoc., 286 Md. 324, 332 , 407 A.2d 749 (1979), and one defamation case, since overruled, Sherrard v. Hull, 53 Md.App. 553, 561 , 456 A.2d 59 , aff'd 296 Md. 189, 460 A.2d 601 (1983), overruled by Miner v. Novotny, 304 Md. 164, 170 , 498 A.2d 269 (1985). 13 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warren v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
The public matter must also be one that is “offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities.” Id. (quoting Klipa v. Bd. of Educ. of Anne Arundel Cnty., 460 A.2d 601, 608 (Md.
discussed
Cited "see"
Agbara v. At&t Mobility LLC
(2×)
Co., 97 A.3d 1053, 1061 (D.C. 2014) (citation omitted); accord Klipa v. Bd. of Educ. of Anne Arundel Cnty., 460 A.2d 601 , 605–06 (Md.
cited
Cited "see"
Finley Alexander Wealth Management, LLC v. M & O Marketing, Inc.
See Klipa, 460 A.2d at 607 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Pion v. Bean
See id. at 607-08 (no cause of action for invasion of privacy where school board released student’s psychological records to principal of different school where there was no evidence that any unwarranted publicity had been given to the information contained in the records, nor that any person other than those entitled to receive the information had been permitted access).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nero v. Mosby
The tort does not require “making public any facts concerning the private life of the individual.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt. a; see also Klipa v. Bd. of Educ. of Anne Arundel Cty., 54 Md.App. 644 , 460 A.2d 601, 607-08 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Wicomico County Board of Education
“Publicity,” as used here, “means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.” Restatement (2d) Torts § 652D, comment a; see also Klipa v. Bd. of Educ. of Anne Arundel Cnty., 54 Md.App. 644 , 460 A.2d 601, 606 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1982) (noting that Maryland courts follow the Restatement (2d) of Torts for invasion of privacy claims).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Valderrama v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.
See, e.g., Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 66 Md.App. 133 , 502 A.2d 1101, 1116 (1986). 19 .Under Maryland law, "one who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for unreasonable invasion of his privacy if the matter publicized is of a kind which (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Klipa v. Board of Educ. of Anne Arundel County, 54 Md.App. 644, 654-655 , 460 A.2d 601 (1983) (quoting Restatement (2d) Torts § 652D). 20 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Happy 40, Inc. v. Miller
(2×)
See also Sherrard v. Hull, 53 Md.App. 553, 581-82 , 456 A.2d 59 , aff'd. and opinion *35 adopted, 296 Md. 189 , 460 A.2d 601 (1983); Jump v. Barnes, 139 Md. 101, 109 , 114 A. 734 (1921).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Warwick C. Sherrard
v.
Edith M. Hull
v.
Edith M. Hull
[No. 42 (Adv.), September Term, 1983.].
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Sep 1, 1983.
Murphy, Smith, Eldridge, Cole, Davidson, Rodowsky, Couch.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari having been granted, we adopt the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Paul E. Alpert of the Court of Special Appeals in Sherrard v. Hull, 53 Md. App. 553, 456 A.2d 59 (1983), and affirm the judgment of that Court.
Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Costs to be paid by the petitioner.