green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
18.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2002–2022 · 2 courts ·
…in our view, section 540.08, by prohibiting the use of one's name or likeness for trade, commercial, or advertising purposes, is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the product or service of the publisher
at p. 622
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
3M Company v. Continental Diamond Tool Corp
in our view, section 540.08, by prohibiting the use of one's name or likeness for trade, commercial, or advertising purposes, is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the product or service of the publisher
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lane v. MRA HOLDINGS, LLC
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
in our view, section 540.08, by prohibiting the use of one's name or likeness for trade, commercial, or advertising purposes, is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the product or service of the publisher
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gori v. Sharma
in our view, section 540.08 . . . is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the product or service of the publisher.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Fabian Lopez, Etc. v. Kendall Healthcare Group, LTD.
Significant to our consideration of this case, such privacy rights are “personal in nature” and “can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded.” Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citing Restatement of Torts 2d, § 652).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuccillo v. Century Enterprises, Inc.
While this case may provide some minimal guidance, the Court finds instructive the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s discussion in Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), as to what is meant by trade, commercial or advertising purposes in the context of a § 540.08 claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coton v. Televised Visual X-Ography, Inc.
See Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., supra, 456 F.3d at 1325 (“The Florida legislature enacted section 540.08 in order to expand the remedies available under the common law right against misappropriation”); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622 (Fla.App.1981) (“By enacting Section 540.08, the Florida Legislature has amplified the remedies available for ... commercial exploitation of the property value of a person’s” likeness).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol
(2×)
Cir. 1987) 829 F.2d 182, 185-186 [families of deceased pilots had protectable privacy interest in autopsy reports]; cf. Loft v. Fuller (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1981) 408 So.2d 619, 624-625 [refusing to adopt "blanket rule" prohibiting relational privacy claims, recognizing in dicta "sufficiently egregious" claims, such as "display[ing] grotesque pictures of the deceased's body," but finding standard not met there in defendant's reports of decedent's reappearance as a ghost].) The majority ably demonstrates the high court has *906 recognized a familial right of privacy in death scene photographs based…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Cox v. Wiod, Inc., 764 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing the dismissal of various claims including false light privacy on the ground of failure to prosecute); Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 433 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing a judgment in a libel and false light case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove falsity); Loft, 408 So.2d at 619 (listing the four kinds of privacy claims in a privacy action based on the theory of unauthorized use of private facts); Cape Publ'n, Inc. v. Bridges, 387 So.2d 436 , 440 n. 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (stating in dictum that actual m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thais Cardoso Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc.
See Tyne v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 901 So.2d 802, 808 (Fla.2005) (stating that “[t]he purpose of section 540.08 is to prevent the use of a person’s name or likeness to directly promote a product or service because of the way that the use associates the person’s name or personality with something else”); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622-23 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (explaining that “Section 540.08, by prohibiting the use of one’s name or likeness for trade, commercial or advertising purposes, is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the produ…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.
Loft, 408 So.2d at 622-23 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder
In Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), this court stated: In our view, Section 540.08, by prohibiting the use of one's name or likeness for trade, commercial or advertising purposes, is designed to prevent the *998 unauthorized use of a name to directly promote the product or service of the publisher.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bosley v. WildWett. Com
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
This area of the law was not “meant to be construed to bar the use of people’s names in such a sweeping fashion.” Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
DISCUSSION A. Commercial Purpose The Tyne Plaintiffs first allege error in the district court’s determination that Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th Dist.1981), controls this case and precludes the application of § 540.08 to the facts herein.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Erica Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
DISCUSSION A. Commercial Purpose 8 The Tyne Plaintiffs first allege error in the district court's determination that Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622 (Fla.Dist.Ct.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MESSENGER BY MESSENGER v. Gruner+ Jahr USA Pub.
Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla.App. 1981); see also Valentine v. C.B.S., Inc., 698 F.2d 430, 433 (11th Cir.1983) (Florida law). 26 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PURRELL v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
See Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Associated Indus. of Fla., Inc., 678 So.2d 1239 , 1252 n. 20 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1245 , 137 L.Ed.2d 327 (1997); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Epic Metals Corp. v. Condec, Inc.
Inc., 698 F.2d 430, 433 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 622-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1198 (Fla.1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Star v. B. J. F.
(2×)
While I would not want to live in a society where freedom of the press was unduly limited, I also find regrettable an interpretation of the First Amendment that fosters such a degree of irresponsibility on the part of the news media. [3] See, e. g., Cape Publications, Inc. v. Hitchner, 514 So. 2d 1136, 1137-1138 (Fla. App. 1987); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619, 622 (Fla. App. 1981). [4] The consequences of the Court's ruling that a State cannot prevent the publication of private facts about its citizens which the State inadvertently discloses is particularly troubling when one considers …
discussed
Cited "see"
Showler v. Harper's Magazine Foundation
See Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 621-22 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (finding portrayal of deceased family member in book as a “ghost,” without permission from his family, did not amount to outrageous conduct).
cited
Cited "see"
Long v. American Red Cross
See Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619 , 622 (Fla.App. 1982), citing Restatement of Torts, 2d, § 652 I (1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wallace MLENAK, Appellant,
v.
ROLAND OFFSETMASCHINFABRIK FABER AND SCHLEICHER, A. G., Appellee.
v.
ROLAND OFFSETMASCHINFABRIK FABER AND SCHLEICHER, A. G., Appellee.
81-100.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec 15, 1981.
408 So. 2d 619
Henry T. Courtney of the Law Offices of Henry T. Courtney, Miami, for appellant.
Ray Dwyer and Michael C. Spring of Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appellant suffered an adverse summary judgment in this personal injury action against the manufacturer of the machine which allegedly was the cause of his injury. The motion for summary judgment was based upon principles of res judicata, defendant showing that in prior litigation appellant had asserted the identical claim against the retail seller of the machine, which litigation had been terminated by offer of judgment, acceptance and satisfaction.
We affirm on the authority of Phillips v. Hall, 297 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Escambia Chemical Corporation v. Industrial-Marine Supply Company, 238 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); 34 A.L.R. 520; and 91 A.L.R.3d 1170.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur.