This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Two former employees of P, at times with the assistance of two members of P's staff, entered P's office without authority and unbeknownst to him, removed numerous documents from his files, made copies of them, replaced the originals, and turned over the copies to D, who was aware of the manner in which the copies had been obtained. Ds thereafter published articles containing information gleaned from these documents.' P sued D for conversion and invasion of privacy. A partial summary judgment was given in favor of P for conversion, and the court denied a partial summary judgment in favor of P for the invasion of privacy action. The District Court ruled that Ds' six newspaper columns concerning P did not establish liability for the tort of invasion of privacy. That tort always been considered a defense to a claim of invasion of privacy by publication, however, the published matter complained of is of general public interest. Ds appealed the partial summary judgment on conversion.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.