Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Privacy Law
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Petitioner, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 131 (2009), Megan Peterson, Tyler Rench
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Petitioner, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 131 (2009), Megan Peterson, Tyler Rench
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT: As encroaching technologies shrink the realm of privacy and expose intimate details of the home, courts must craft a solution that will provide a remedy to the injured. When Marshoogle’s prying cameras took photographs of Nevilson seated inside his home, they invaded his privacy by intruding into his private area of seclusion and this court should give Nevilson the opportunity to seek a remedy. Because Nevilson was inside his home when the images were captured, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which cannot be lost simply by leaving his curtains open. Marshoogle’s cameras were intentionally …
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Respondent, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 169 (2009), Michael Jones, Stuart Ladner, Sabrina Stone
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Brief For The Respondent, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 169 (2009), Michael Jones, Stuart Ladner, Sabrina Stone
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT: Nevilson has not raised a genuine issue of material fact on his intrusion upon seclusion claim. First, Nevilson cannot show Marshoogle intentionally invaded Nevilson’s privacy. When Marshoogle captured the images for its Marshall Avenue Perspective feature, no one physically entered Nevilson’s property or used sensory enhancements or telephoto lenses to pry into his private space. Second, Marshoogle’s actions were not highly offensive to a reasonable person because the photographs were not captured in an effort to exploit or defame Nevilson, but rather were captured in an effort to produce a free and effective virtual map for …
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Bench Memorandum, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 95 (2009), Sarah M. Knight, William S. Weltman, Andrew T. Call, Panagiota Kelali
2009 John Marshall Law School International Moot Court Competition In Information Technology And Privacy Law: Bench Memorandum, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 95 (2009), Sarah M. Knight, William S. Weltman, Andrew T. Call, Panagiota Kelali
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
Petitioner, Phillip Nevilson, appeals to the Marshall Supreme Court from a decision affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of Respondent, Marshoogle, Inc., on his claims of intrusion upon seclusion, publication of private facts, and tortious interference with business expectancy claims. The issues in this case concern whether an individual can state a claim for invasion of privacy against an Internet search engine provider where liability is based on taking a photograph of an individual in his home and the publication of such photograph on a website. The final issue concerns whether the act of publication of the photograph …
Tuck-It-Away Associates, L.P. V. Empire State Development Corp., Kelly D. Fisher
Tuck-It-Away Associates, L.P. V. Empire State Development Corp., Kelly D. Fisher
NYLS Law Review
No abstract provided.