Cassius L. Peacock, Jr. v. Retail Credit Company
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bernard H. Tureen v. Equifax, Inc. (8th Cir. 1978)
- Selma Smith v. First National Bank of Atlanta (1st Cir. 1988)
- City of College Park v. Cotter (Md. 1987)
- David Pope Hood v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (5th Cir. 1973)
- Wilson v. Retail Credit Company (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1971)
- Jo Anne Atwell v. Retail Credit Company (4th Cir. 1970)
- Schafer v. Time, Inc. (11th Cir. 1998)
- Schafer v. Time, Inc. (11th Cir. 1998)
- Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)
- Summers v. Bailey (11th Cir. 1995)
- Ijeamaka Ekweani v. Atlanta City Employees Credit Union (4th Cir. 1994)
- Reuber v. Food Chemical News, Inc. (4th Cir. 1990)
- Satterfield v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1985)
- Crystal Gale Thurston v. The Macke Company (4th Cir. 1983)
- Robertshaw Controls Company v. Pre-Engineered Products, Co., Inc., Ball-Co Contractors, Inc. And Algernon-Blair, Inc. (5th Cir. 1982)
- A. D. Luster, A's Fishhouses, Inc. v. Retail Credit Company (8th Cir. 1978)
- David Weinberger, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Retail Credit Company (4th Cir. 1974)
- Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)
- Mary Wilson v. Retail Credit Co., Inc. (5th Cir. 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
. The District Court opinion is published at 302 F.Supp. 418 (N.D.Ga., 1969).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.