Town & Country Properties v. Riggins
Virginia Supreme Court
457 S.E.2d 356 (1995)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
John Riggins (plaintiff) was a former professional football player who played professional football in Washington, D.C. for five years. John was a local celebrity. John made most of his postfootball living by charging fees for endorsing products and making personal appearances. In 1991, John and his wife, Mary Lou Riggins, divorced. Mary Lou received the marital home in the divorce settlement. Mary Lou subsequently became a real estate saleswoman for Town & Country Properties, Inc. (Town) (defendant). In 1992, Mary Lou decided to sell the former marital home, using Town as her broker. To drum up interest in the house by other area brokers, Mary Lou and Town organized a so-called brokers’ open, which they publicized by distributing a flyer. The flyer described the house as “John Riggins’ Former Home.” At Mary Lou’s request, the flyer’s printer used larger letters for John’s name and made the name stand out. The flyer also included Town’s name and logo and Mary Lou’s contact information. Approximately 1,600 copies of the flyer were distributed to real estate offices in the nearby area. Mary Lou sold the house approximately 10 days after the brokers’ open, generating a $44,700 commission for Town. Town did not obtain John’s permission to use his name on the flyer or notify John that his name would be used that way. John sued Town when he learned about the flyer, alleging that Town, among other things, violated Virginia Code § 8.01-40(A) (privacy statute) by using his name for advertising purposes without his permission. At trial, the jury ruled for John and awarded him $25,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $28,000. Town appealed, arguing that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution barred John’s claim because the flyer’s statement that John formerly owned the home was true. Town further argued that it did not violate the privacy statute because (1) the flyer did not constitute advertising and (2) Town did not use John’s name for advertising purposes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Compton, 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. 46,500 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.