Case Citator › Welling v. Weinfeld

Welling v. Weinfeld

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
113 Ohio St. 3d 464
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
74 of 74
Citing cases (total)
165
Treatment dates
2019
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Welling v. Weinfeld remains the Ohio Supreme Court's recognition of false-light invasion of privacy, subject to the limitation listed below. The First District requires special damages when the alleged false light rests on words defamatory per quod.
More on how this was screened

All 74 flagged citations were read; this is the one confirmed adverse treatment. The other opinions applied Welling or described its effect on earlier cases.

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.

165 later cases cite Welling v. Weinfeld; 74 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 Welling v. Weinfeld?

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

Limited

  • The First District required pleading and proof of special damages for a false-light claim based on language defamatory per quod, adding a condition to the cause of action Welling recognized.

    Dudee v. Philpot · Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District · filed

    The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the false-light cause of action not because it wanted plaintiffs to have an alternative cause of action where they could not sustain a defamation claim due to a lack of special damages, but because it wanted to give plaintiffs the ability to protect their interests against having false information publicized about them. See Welling, 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451, 866 N.E.2d 1051, at ¶ 39, 50, 60. ... We therefore hold that whenever a false-light invasion-of-privacy claim is based on language that is defamatory per quod, pleading and proof of special damages is required.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Welling v. Weinfeld 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