U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

Charles S. Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 30, 1956 · Prettyman, Fahy, Bastian

232 F.2d 369 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Harry P. Warner, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward Genn, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Irving A. Levine, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Messrs. Percy A. Shay and Sidney H. Willner, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros. (D.C. 1985)
John Doe v. John L. McMillan (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson v. Thomas J. Dodd (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Nader v. General Motors Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1969)
Afro-American Publishing Co., Inc. v. Eli Jaffe, T/a Douglas Pharmacy (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Strickler v. National Broadcasting Company (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1958)
F. Rahman v. White Haven Ambulance (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018)
Rumbauskas v. Cantor (N.J. 1994)
Wolf v. Regardie (D.C. 1989)
Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1987)
Brown v. American Broadcasting Co. (4th Cir. 1983)
Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1981)
McCormack v. Oklahoma Publishing Co. (Okla. 1980)
United States v. Hubbard (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Eliah v. Ucatan Corp. (District Court, W.D. New York 1977)
Evans v. Sturgill (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1977)
Barker v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. (Richmond City Circuit Court 1973)
Young v. That Was the Week That Was (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1969)
Dodd v. Pearson (District Court, District of Columbia 1968)
Nader v. General Motors Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1968)
Sperry Rand Corporation v. William R. Hill, Jr. (1st Cir. 1966)
Travers v. Paton (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1966)
Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, Inc., Lummus Company v. Honorable Archie O. Dawson (2d Cir. 1962)

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

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

These are appeals from a judgment of the District Court, in which that court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in two consolidated civil actions for invasion of privacy. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant Bernstein, under the name Charles Harris, was indicted in 1933 for first-degree murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be executed. Several persons, including a reporter on The Washington Daily News, interested themselves in his situation and, as a result of their efforts and considerable publicity, secured for him a commutation, then in 1940 a conditional release, and finally in 1945 a Presidential pardon. After his release Bernstein lived quietly and without notoriety. In 1952 the defendant National Broadcasting Company, in a telecast entertainment program entitled “The Big Story”, made an award to the News reporter for her work in behalf of this man. The telecast was a fictionalized dramatization of the events of the trial, the publicity, and the release. Neither Bernstein’s name nor the true name of any other person involved, except that of the reporter, was used. The events pictured differed in many respects from the actual events, but no features derogatory to Bernstein, other than those which appeared in the court records or in the publicity as of the time of the events, were depicted. Bernstein sued the National Broadcasting Company for invasion of privacy. His theory was that his private life after his restoration to society invested him with the same right of privacy he would have had if the events here involved had not been publicized. He conceded that only persons familiar with the trial or the publicity at the time would have identified the case in “The Big Story”.

District Judge Keech rendered a long, careful and exhaustive opinion in the case. 1 We find nothing to add to his discussion. Upon that basis the judgment is

Affirmed.

. Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Company, 129 F.Supp. 817 (D.C.D.C. 1955).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.