Cassius L. Peacock, Jr. v. Retail Credit Company

Fifth Circuit

Cassius L. Peacock, Jr. v. Retail Credit Company

429 F.2d 31

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1970

Docket28646

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 31 (Cassius L. Peacock, Jr. v. Retail Credit Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cassius L. Peacock, Jr. v. Retail Credit Company, 429 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a diversity action for libel and invasion of privacy against Retail Credit Company for allegedly publishing false *32 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.

1

. The District Court opinion is published at 302 F.Supp. 418 (N.D.Ga., 1969).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is a diversity action for libel and invasion of privacy against Retail Credit Company for allegedly publishing false *32 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.

1

. The District Court opinion is published at 302 F.Supp. 418 (N.D.Ga., 1969).

899 F.2d 271 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)

Reuber v. Food Chemical News, Inc.

899 F.2d 271 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)

Selma Smith v. First National Bank of Atlanta

837 F.2d 1575 (First Circuit, 1988)

City of College Park v. Cotter

525 A.2d 1059 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1987)

Satterfield v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc.

617 F. Supp. 1359 (D. South Carolina, 1985)

Crystal Gale Thurston v. The MacKe Company

716 F.2d 255 (Fourth Circuit, 1983)

Robertshaw Controls Company v. Pre-Engineered Products, Co., Inc., Ball-Co Contractors, Inc. And Algernon-Blair, Inc.

669 F.2d 298 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

A. D. Luster, A's Fishhouses, Inc. v. Retail Credit Company

575 F.2d 609 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)

Bernard H. Tureen v. Equifax, Inc.

571 F.2d 411 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)

David Weinberger, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Retail Credit Company

498 F.2d 552 (Fourth Circuit, 1974)

Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

306 N.E.2d 549 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1973)

David Pope Hood v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

486 F.2d 25 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)

Wilson v. Retail Credit Company

325 F. Supp. 460 (S.D. Mississippi, 1971)

Mary Wilson v. Retail Credit Co., Inc.

438 F.2d 1043 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Mary Wilson v. Retail Credit Co., Inc., No. 30197 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I

438 F.2d 1043 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Jo Anne Atwell v. Retail Credit Company

431 F.2d 1008 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassius-l-peacock-jr-v-retail-credit-company-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack