Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adjudication (1)
- Agencies (1)
- Applicant (1)
- Appropriation of name or likeness (1)
- Benefits (1)
-
- Branding (1)
- Commoditizing personality rights (1)
- Common law privacy torts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Credibility (1)
- Definition (1)
- Entails (1)
- Influencer law (1)
- Legal System (1)
- Monetizing personality rights (1)
- Oral Argument (1)
- Outcomes (1)
- Personal branding (1)
- Personality rights (1)
- Personality rights infringement (1)
- Presumption (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Privacy tort remedy (1)
- Privacy torts (1)
- Remedy efficiency (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Systematizing (1)
- Tort remedy social efficiency (1)
- Trial (1)
- Truth (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
Law's Credibility Problem, Julia Simon-Kerr
Law's Credibility Problem, Julia Simon-Kerr
Washington Law Review
Credibility determinations often seal people’s fates. They can determine outcomes at trial; they condition the provision of benefits, like social security; and they play an increasingly dispositive role in immigration proceedings. Yet there is no stable definition of credibility in the law. Courts and agencies diverge at the most basic definitional level in their use of the category.
Consider a real-world example. An immigration judge denies asylum despite the applicant’s plausible and unrefuted account of persecution in their country of origin. The applicant appeals, pointing to the fact that Congress enacted a “rebuttable presumption of credibility” for asylum-seekers “on appeal.” …
You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue
You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue
Washington Law Review
United States common law provides four torts for privacy invasion: (1) disclosure of private facts, (2) intrusion upon seclusion, (3) placement of a person in a false light, and (4) appropriation of name or likeness. Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when a defendant commandeers the plaintiff’s recognizability, typically for a commercial benefit. Most states allow plaintiffs who establish liability to recover defendants’ profits as damages from the misappropriation under an “unjust enrichment” theory. By contrast, this Comment argues that such an award provides a windfall to plaintiffs and contributes to suboptimal social outcomes. These include overcompensating plaintiffs and incentivizing …
Direct Actions For Emotional Harm: Is Compromise Possible?, Julie A. Davies
Direct Actions For Emotional Harm: Is Compromise Possible?, Julie A. Davies
Washington Law Review
While most courts and commentators acknowledge that emotional injury resulting from negligence may merit compensation, they share the conviction that some limits must be placed on such claims. They identify two basic policy rationales as the justifications for limiting claims for emotional harm: (1) the desire to ensure that a defendant's liability for negligence is not disproportionate to his or her fault, and (2) the desire to prevent litigation of trivial or fraudulent claims. This Article argues that the two rules most frequently applied by courts to effectuate limitations on recovery—the "zone-of-danger" rule and the "foreseeability-plus-serious-injury" rule—suffer from serious deficiencies. …