## Facts

- Police executed a search warrant at Timothy and Kathy Magenis’s home on May 9, 1986.
- A television news crew employed by Fisher Broadcasting (KATU) accompanied officers into the residence, filmed the search, and broadcast footage that night.
- Plaintiffs alleged two invasion-of-privacy theories:
  - Intrusion upon seclusion based on the crew’s entry and filming inside the home.
  - False light based on a broadcast allegedly portraying plaintiffs as involved with stolen vehicles and narcotics.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on November 18, 1987, more than one year after the broadcast.

## Issues

1. Whether a false light invasion-of-privacy claim based on allegedly defamatory publicity is governed by Oregon’s one-year statute of limitations for libel and slander (ORS 12.120(2)) rather than the two-year catch-all tort limitations period (ORS 12.110(1)).
2. Whether, for limitations purposes, Oregon treats a pleaded “false light” claim as defamation when the substance of the claim is reputational harm from a defamatory communication.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the false light claim was time-barred because the alleged false light consisted of defamatory publicity and therefore fell within ORS 12.120(2)’s one-year limitations period.
- The court left undisturbed the jury verdict for defendants on the intrusion upon seclusion claim.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon recognizes false light invasion of privacy consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.
- Statute-of-limitations analysis looks to the substance of the alleged wrong rather than the label attached to the claim.
- When the “essence” of a false light claim is reputational injury from a defamatory communication (e.g., implication of criminal conduct), the claim is treated as an action for libel or slander for limitations purposes.
- A plaintiff may not avoid the one-year libel/slander limitations period by styling a substantively defamatory claim as false light.

## Conclusion

Because the alleged false light was a televised portrayal implying criminal activity, the court applied Oregon’s one-year libel and slander statute of limitations and affirmed dismissal of the false light claim as untimely, while also affirming the defense verdict on intrusion upon seclusion.


Magenis v. Fisher Broad., Inc., 103 Or. App. 555, 798 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1990)