TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charles S. Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Charles S. BERNSTEIN, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, Inc., Appellee

Bernstein v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 232 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 30, 1956
Docket
Nos. 12711, 12712
Judges
Prettyman, Fahy, Bastian
Citations
232 F.2d 369

Opinion — Prettyman

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

These are appeals from a judgment of the District Court, in which that court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in two consolidated civil actions for invasion of privacy. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant Bernstein, under the name Charles Harris, was indicted in 1933 for first-degree murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be executed. Several persons, including a reporter on The Washington Daily News, interested themselves in his situation and, as a result of their efforts and considerable publicity, secured for him a commutation, then in 1940 a conditional release, and finally in 1945 a Presidential pardon. After his release Bernstein lived quietly and without notoriety. In 1952 the defendant National Broadcasting Company, in a telecast entertainment program entitled “The Big Story”, made an award to the News reporter for her work in behalf of this man. The telecast was a fictionalized dramatization of the events of the trial, the publicity, and the release. Neither Bernstein’s name nor the true name of any other person involved, except that of the reporter, was used. The events pictured differed in many respects from the actual events, but no features derogatory to Bernstein, other than those which appeared in the court records or in the publicity as of the time of the events, were depicted. Bernstein sued the National Broadcasting Company for invasion of privacy. His theory was that his private life after his restoration to society invested him with the same right of privacy he would have had if the events here involved had not been publicized. He conceded that only persons familiar with the trial or the publicity at the time would have identified the case in “The Big Story”.

District Judge Keech rendered a long, careful and exhaustive opinion in the case.

1

We find nothing to add to his discussion. Upon that basis the judgment is Affirmed.

1

. Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Company, 129 F.Supp. 817 (D.C.D.C.1955).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 28 cases

View all citing references →
1957: 11958: 21959: 11962: 11966: 31968: 21969: 31972: 11973: 11977: 21980: 21981: 21983: 21985: 11987: 11989: 11994: 12018: 119572026peak 1966 · 3

Most recent

  1. Rahman v. White Haven Ambulance195 A.3d 355 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018)
  2. Rumbauskas v. Cantor649 A.2d 853 (N.J. 1994)
  3. Wolf v. Regardie553 A.2d 1213 (D.C. 1989)
  4. Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.664 F. Supp. 1490 (D.D.C. 1987)
  5. Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros.492 A.2d 580 (D.C. 1985)
  6. Glenda C. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc. Margaret Osmer-Mcquade, Kathleen T. Gardner, David L704 F.2d 1296 (4th Cir. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Bernstein v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 129 F. Supp. 817 (D.D.C. 1955) 43

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list