Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Wal-Mart employee circulated a customer’s private nude photograph. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, recognized three of the four common law invasion of privacy torts, establishing new causes of action in the state.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established common law torts for invasion of privacy in Minnesota for the first time, adopting intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts, while explicitly rejecting the tort of false light publicity due to First Amendment concerns.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Elli Lake and Melissa Weber brought several rolls of film to a Wal-Mart photo lab for development. One photograph depicted the two women naked together in a shower. When the plaintiffs retrieved their developed photos, a notice indicated that one photograph was not printed due to its “nature.” Subsequently, the plaintiffs learned from acquaintances that a Wal-Mart employee had retained a copy of the nude photograph and was circulating it within their community. The circulation of the photograph led to questions about the plaintiffs’ sexual orientation. Lake and Weber filed a complaint against Wal-Mart and its employee(s), alleging four distinct invasion of privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light publicity. The lower courts dismissed the complaint, holding that Minnesota common law did not recognize any tort for invasion of privacy, prompting this appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Minnesota common law recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy, encompassing the torts of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light publicity?
Yes, in part. The court recognized the torts of intrusion upon seclusion, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Minnesota common law recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy, encompassing the torts of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light publicity?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational Minnesota decision that judicially adopted three of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitatio
Legal Rule
A plaintiff may bring a common law cause of action in Minnesota Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Minnesota began by affirming its authority to develop Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a landmark decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the common