CASSIUS L. PEACOCK, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RETAIL CREDIT COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the Georgia one-year statute of limitations barred the libel action and no invasion of privacy claim was shown.
Plaintiff sued Retail Credit Company for libel and invasion of privacy based on allegedly false statements in credit reports. The district court grant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Disclosure Of Private Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a diversity action for libel and invasion of privacy against Retail Credit Company for allegedly publishing false and defamatory statements in credit reports furnished to insurance companies and banks. The District Court entered summary judgment for defendant Retail Credit Company, holding that the Georgia one year statute of limitations, Ga.Code § 3-1004, barred the libel action and that no claim was shown for invasion of privacy because plaintiff failed to show any physical trespass or “public” disclosure of private facts. We affirm.
The District Judge thoroughly analyzed and answered all the contentions raised by plaintiff and we affirm on the basis of his opinion.1 We add only the following:
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, the state where the publication of the alleged defamation occurred is immaterial. Since Georgia is the forum state Georgia law governs with respect to the statute of limitations. Baron Tube Company v. Transport Insurance Company, 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F. 2d 858, 860 and cases there cited.
In holding that there was no “public” disclosure, the District Judge decided a close question of state substantive law for which there was no authority squarely on point. Unlike Petersen v. Klos, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F. 2d 199, the District Judge in this case carefully explained his reasoning. His judgment of where the dimly lit Erie path leads is as good as ours would be. We therefore give great weight to the determination of state law by the Trial Judge sitting in the state and familiar with local law and its trends. C. H. Leavell & Co. v. Bd. of Comm., Port of New Orleans 3, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F. 2d 764. See, e. g., Delduca v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 5 Cir. 1966, 357 F. 2d 204, n. 1, reh. denied, 362 F. 2d 1012, and cases cited.
There was no abuse of discretion in denying further discovery.
Affirmed.
. The District Court opinion is published at 302 F.Supp. 418 (N.D.Ga., 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Luster v. Retail Credit Co., 575 F.2d 609 (8th Cir. 1978)
-
Hood v. DUN & Bradstreet, Inc., 486 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Weinberger v. Retail Credit Co., 498 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- C. H. Leavell & Co. v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Port OF NEW Orleans & Dep't of Highways, 424 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Baron Tube Co. v. The Transp. Ins. Co., 365 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Delduca v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 357 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Petersen v. Sgt. Robert M. Klos, 426 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Earnest E. Archie v. State OF Miss., 362 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Delduca v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 362 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1966)