§Why CasetextPricing

Lindsay Lohan, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Brief

25 Cited authorities

  1. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

    564 U.S. 786 (2011)   Cited 487 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

  2. Howell v. New York Post Co.

    81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,429 times
    Holding that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: " extreme and outrageous conduct; intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and severe emotional distress."

  3. Freihofer v. Hearst Corp.

    65 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 608 times
    Holding that violation of confidentiality provisions of New York's Domestic Relations Law by publication of information contained in court papers in a divorce action was not capable of sustaining an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim

  4. Immuno Ag. v. Moor-Jankowski

    77 N.Y.2d 235 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 375 times
    Holding that the New York State Constitution independently provides protection for statements of opinion greater than those required by the First Amendment

  5. Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing

    94 N.Y.2d 436 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that no appropriation claim may lie where “plaintiff's photograph is used to illustrate a newsworthy article”

  6. Stephano v. News Group Pub

    64 N.Y.2d 174 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 149 times
    Finding right of publicity under New York law limited to statutory protection of "name, portrait or picture"

  7. Nussenzweig v. Philip-Lorca

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8783 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 53 times

    No. 155. Argued October 10, 2007. Decided November 15, 2007. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered March 20, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.; op 11 Misc 3d 1051 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50171 [U]) insofar as it had granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The following question was certified by

  8. Finger v. Omni Publs. Intl

    77 N.Y.2d 138 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 71 times
    In Finger, "[n]either the article nor the caption mentioned plaintiffs' names or indicated in any fashion that the adult plaintiffs used caffeine or that the children were produced through in vitro fertilization" (Finger v. Omni Publs. Intl., supra, at 140, 564 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 566 N.E.2d 141 [emphasis added]).

  9. Ruffin-Steinback v. dePasse

    267 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that "the use of plaintiffs' fictionalized likenesses in a work protected by the First Amendment and the advertising incidental to such uses did not give rise to a claim for relief under the plaintiffs' rights of publicity"

  10. Matthews v. Wozencraft

    15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the persona as property under Texas law

  11. Section 51 - Action for injunction and for damages

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51   Cited 552 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Affording cause of action for commercial use of name or picture without prior written consent