Plaxico v. Michael
Mississippi Supreme Court
735 So. 2d 1036 (1999)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Glenn Michael (defendant) had a six-year-old daughter who lived with her mother, Michael’s ex-wife. Michael became aware that his ex-wife’s roommate, Rita Plaxico (plaintiff), might be his ex-wife’s live-in girlfriend. Michael was concerned that it was not appropriate for his daughter to be living with two unmarried adults who were in a romantic relationship. In order to get proof that Plaxico was more than a roommate to support a request for custody of his daughter, Michael peeped through his ex-wife’s bedroom window and watched his ex-wife and Plaxico have sex. Michael then took three photographs that showed Plaxico in bed, nude from the waist up. Michael had the photographs developed and showed them to his attorney. Michael claimed that he did not show the photographs to anyone else. Michael then sought custody of his daughter, and Michael’s lawyer produced the nude photos to the ex-wife’s lawyer during the custody proceedings. Michael was ultimately awarded custody of his daughter. Plaxico then sued Michael for the tort of intentional intrusion upon her seclusion and solitude. The trial court dismissed Plaxico’s claim, and Plaxico appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
Dissent (McRae, J.)
Dissent (Banks, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.