Also known as: substantially interfere · substantially interferes · substantially interfering · substantial interferences · material interference · significant interference
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A level of disruption or impairment to a protected interest that exceeds trivial effects or reactions based on hypersensitivity. The interference must be significant enough to support liability or affect legal rights under the governing standard.
Judge Rivera issues a press release criticizing a criminal defendant's character while the trial is underway. The statement draws widespread media attention and prompts potential jurors to form negative views. The conduct creates a substantial interference with the fairness of the hearing.
The Hog Farm Partnership sprays liquid manure near a public lake and parks. Strong odors and flies repeatedly reach the recreation areas and cause nausea among visitors. The recurring effects produce a substantial interference with public comfort and convenience.
A defamation plaintiff seeks to question the publisher about internal editorial decisions. The publisher claims a privilege that would block all direct evidence of reckless disregard. The restriction would create a substantial interference with the plaintiff's ability to prove malice.
In 1969-1970, Anthony Herbert, a retired Army officer with extended wartime service in Vietnam, accused his superior officers of covering up reports of atrocities and other war crimes and received widespread media attention. Three years later, on February 4, 1973, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. broadcast a report on Herbert and his accusations. The program was produced and edited by Barry Lando and narrated by Mike Wallace. Lando later published a related article in Atlantic Monthly magazine. Herbert sued Lando, Wallace, CBS, and Atlantic Monthly for defamation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction. In his complaint, Herbert alleged that the program and article falsely and maliciously portrayed him as a liar who had made war-crimes charges to explain his relief from command. He sought substantial damages for injury to his reputation and to the literary value of a book he had published recounting his experiences. Although Herbert conceded he was a public figure required to prove actual malice, he deposed Lando at length and sought an order to compel answers to a variety of questions to which response was refused on the ground that the First Amendment protected against inquiry into the state of mind of those who edit, produce, or publish, and into the editorial process. The District Court found the questions relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the defendant's state of mind was central to malice and ordered Lando to answer. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. It held that the First Amendment supplied an absolute privilege protecting Lando from inquiry into his thoughts, opinions, and conclusions regarding the material gathered and his conversations with editorial colleagues. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseCyber Promotions sends thousands of unsolicited messages to CompuServe subscribers. The volume consumes server resources and disrupts normal operations. The contact amounts to a substantial interference with the possessory interest in the computer system.
CompuServe Incorporated operates one of the major national commercial online computer services through a proprietary nationwide computer network that provides subscribers with access to its content and a link to the Internet for exchanging electronic mail. Defendants Cyber Promotions, Inc. and its president Sanford Wallace are in the business of sending unsolicited e-mail advertisements on behalf of themselves and their clients to hundreds of thousands of Internet users, many of whom are CompuServe subscribers. Over the past several months, CompuServe received many complaints from subscribers threatening to discontinue their subscriptions unless the company prohibited electronic mass mailers from using its equipment. In or around October 1995, CompuServe employee Jon Schmidt specifically told Sanford Wallace that he was prohibited from using CompuServe's equipment to send junk e-mail messages. CompuServe later posted an online policy statement declaring that it does not permit its facilities to be used by unauthorized parties to process and store unsolicited e-mail. Despite the notification, defendants sent an increasing volume of e-mail solicitations to CompuServe subscribers. CompuServe attempted to block the messages with software programs, but defendants modified their equipment and messages to circumvent the screening by falsifying the point-of-origin information in the headers, removing sender information, and configuring their servers to conceal their true domain name. CompuServe submitted affidavits from software developer Michael Mangino on the burden to its equipment, customer service manager Patrick Hole on receiving approximately 9,970 e-mail complaints in November 1996, and others documenting the evasion tactics. On October 24, 1996, the court issued a temporary restraining order, and following a hearing on December 15, 1996, the court considered CompuServe's application for a preliminary injunction to extend the order and enjoin defendants from sending any unsolicited advertisements to CompuServe subscribers.
View caseBidder’s Edge deploys bots that repeatedly query eBay listings. The activity generates incremental server costs and impairs system performance. The use produces a measurable though incremental substantial interference with eBay's possessory rights.
eBay, Inc. operates an Internet-based person-to-person trading site that allows sellers to list items for auction and buyers to search listings and place bids directly with sellers. The site has over 7 million registered users, adds more than 400,000 new items daily, receives 10 million searches per day, and processes 600 bids per minute across nearly 3 million items. Users register by clicking an “I Accept” button on a seven-page User Agreement that prohibits robots, spiders, or other automated devices from monitoring or copying web pages without prior written permission. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., a 22-employee company founded in 1997, operates an auction aggregation site that compiles data from more than one hundred auction sites into its own database containing over five million items. When a user searches on the BE site, the site queries its database rather than the original host sites. Approximately 69 percent of the items in BE’s database come from eBay auctions, and BE estimates it would lose one-third of its users if it stopped covering eBay. In early 1998 eBay permitted BE to include Beanie Babies and Furbies listings. In April 1999 eBay verbally approved BE crawling the site for a 90-day period while the parties negotiated a licensing agreement, but they failed to reach terms. After BE briefly stopped posting eBay listings in late August or early September 1999 and then resumed in November, eBay sent a November 9 letter demanding that BE cease access, alleging trespass, and offering a license. eBay then blocked 169 IP addresses it believed BE was using; BE evaded the blocks by routing queries through proxy servers. BE sent eBay’s systems between 80,000 and 100,000 requests per day, accounting for 0.70 to 1.53 percent of eBay’s requests and data transfer during October and November 1999. eBay calculated alleged damages of $45,323 to $61,804 over ten months but did not identify specific incremental costs caused by BE. The motion for a preliminary injunction was heard on April 14, 2000.
View caseMaretti plans to construct a home that will shade Prah's solar panels. The obstruction will prevent Prah from using sunlight for energy collection. The interference with access to light constitutes a substantial interference with Prah's use and enjoyment of land.
The plaintiff, Frank Prah, owns a residence in a subdivision in the Town of Muskego that he constructed during 1978 or 1979. His home includes a solar energy system which includes roof-mounted solar collectors located on the south side of the roof. The solar energy system supplies heat for the plaintiff's domestic hot water and space heating. The plaintiff has invested $20,000 in his solar heating system. In 1980, the defendant, Richard D. Maretti, acquired the vacant lot immediately south of Prah's property and began planning to build a two-story residence whose roof would extend to within twelve feet of the lot line. The proposed structure would cast a shadow over Prah's solar collectors during the winter months, rendering the heating system inoperable. Prah informed Maretti about the solar system and asked him to adjust the location of the new home to avoid interference with the collectors, but Maretti declined to modify his plans. Prah then filed suit in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, alleging that the construction would constitute a private nuisance and seeking injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which accepted certification.
View caseThe interference must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an average person in the community. Effects that arise only from the plaintiff's hypersensitivity or specialized use of property do not qualify as substantial.
One factor supporting unreasonableness is whether the conduct involves a significant interference with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience. Recurring odors and flies that cancel community events and cause nausea meet this threshold.
A 90-minute hold of a briefcase or carry-on bag on reasonable suspicion alone exceeds the narrow time frame permitted for an investigative detention. The extended deprivation of access and the resulting missed flight convert the detention into an unreasonable seizure.