We decline to hold as a matter of law that no facts could exist, either under the Restatement definition of publicity or under an expanded interpretation, which would demonstrate a ground for recovery under the disclosure tort. In so holding we express no opinion on whether Greenwood will be able to prove his claim for invasion of privacy. We simply cannot say, at this early stage of the proceedings, that he can prove no set of facts to support his claim which will entitle him to relief. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The matter is remanded with instructions to proceed on the disclosure claim in accordance with this Opinion.
Information here is correct at the time it is posted.
Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first. All rights reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.