Supreme Court of the United States, 1911

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 1, 1911 · Holmes

220 U.S. 502; 31 S. Ct. 490; 55 L. Ed. 561; 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1694 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John Hall Jones for plaintiff in error:, The court declined to hear further argument, but Mr. Thomas E. O’Brien filed a brief for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

106 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Bean v. State (Mont. 2008)
People v. Floyd (Cal. 2003)
State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. National Advertising Co. (Me. 1978)
Polelle v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1974)
Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Plff. In Err., V (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Drawn v. Nueschid (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2019)
People v. Cervantes (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
People v. Mendoza (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Commonwealth v. Grove (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)
People v. Jones (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
People v. Carrea (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
State v. Ronald Knipfer (Wis. 2015)
People v. Hamilton CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
People v. Rosalinda C. (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
People v. Mora (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)
People v. Cruz (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
People v. Lynch (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
People v. Verba (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
CONTINENTAL COAL, INC. v. Cunningham (District Court, D. Kansas 2008)
Sonnier v. Quarterman (5th Cir. 2007)
Sonnier v. Quarterman (5th Cir. 2007)
People v. Fryman (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. McCarthy (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)
Blanchard v. Conrad, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Henash v. Ipalook (Alaska 1999)

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 of the Court

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error for *505using her photographed portrait for advertising purposes without her written consent first obtained. The facts were found against the defendant (the plaintiff in. error), an injunction was issued and damages were awarded; 120 App. Div. 467; the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 193 N. Y. 223, and thereupon final judgment was entered in the Supreme Court. The suit was based upon Chapter 132 of the New York Statutes of 1903, which makes such use of the name, portrait or picture of any living person a misdemeanor and gives this action. The case comes here on the single question of the constitutionality of the act. It is argued that as before the statute a person could not prevent the use of her portrait by one who took and owned it, Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N. Y. 538, to deny that use now is to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law.

The Court of Appeals held that the statute applied only to photographs taken after it went into effect, as was the photograph of the plaintiff that the defendant used. The property was brought into existence under a law that limited the uses to be made of it, and, if otherwise there could have been any question, in such a case there is none. Some comment was made in argument on the distinction between photographs taken before and after the date in 1903 as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.

Judgment affirmed.

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