Taggart v. Wadleigh-Maurice, Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
489 F.2d 434 (1973)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Thomas Taggart (plaintiff) was a custodian of portable latrines at the Woodstock music festival. Agents of Wadleigh-Maurice, Ltd. (WM) (defendant) were at the festival and filmed 120 hours of events at the festival. The 120 hours would later be edited to create a documentary. The agents approached Taggart and asked him questions about what he was doing. The agents also filmed Taggart. Taggart was not asked for consent to film, nor did he give it. Later, after the documentary was released, Taggart realized he was in about two minutes of the documentary. Taggart was portrayed in a way that made him memorable to the documentary audience and that showed him as an object of ridicule. Taggart suffered mental anguish and embarrassment. Taggart sued for invasion of privacy. Taggart’s version of the facts is that he was an involuntary performer in WM’s documentary. WM’s version is that Taggart was part of an event of public interest, and WM had merely shown facts. The trial court dismissed Taggart’s case on summary judgment. Taggart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)
Dissent (Van Dusen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 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.
