Case Citator › Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
6 Ohio St. 3d 369
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
130 of 130
Citing cases (total)
822
Treatment dates
2007
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Yeager v. Local Union 20 is overruled in part. All 130 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Welling v. Weinfeld reversed Yeager's refusal to recognize false-light invasion of privacy under Ohio law. Yeager's emotional distress and other holdings survive. The confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

822 later cases cite Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America; 130 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Ohio Supreme Court recognized false-light invasion of privacy, ending Yeager's contrary refusal to recognize the claim.

    Welling v. Weinfeld · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    However, in Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 6 OBR 421, 453 N.E.2d 666, this court made clear that whatever it had said in Sustin did not constitute a holding on the issue: ... We therefore recognize the tort of false-light invasion of privacy and adopt Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 652E.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace