Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Torts Keyed to Twerski

View this case in different Casebooks

Torts Keyed to Epstein Torts Keyed to Miller

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

Citation:

71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Intel Corp. (Plaintiff) sued FACE-Intel and Hamidi (Defendants), former employees sending mass emails through Plaintiff’s internal internet and computer system criticizing Plaintiff’s employment policies. Plaintiff argued a claim for trespass to chattels and sought an injunction against any further emails being sent.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - How does the majority’s holding in Intel Corp. v. Hamidi reflect a deviation from the historical elasticity of trespass to chattels doctrine, particularly in the transition from tangible to intangible property contexts?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) It preserves the fluidity of the tort by recognizing non-physical intrusions as functionally equivalent to physical trespasses in digital networks.

Incorrect. A is incorrect because the court explicitly declined to treat non-physical communication as functionally equivalent to physical invasions.

(B) It narrows the tort by anchoring liability in measurable impairment, rejecting disruption, annoyance, or reputational loss as sufficient.

Correct! The majority held that actionable trespass to chattels requires proof of actual system impairment or diminished capacity, rejecting the idea that unauthorized but non-disruptive digital access—such as Hamidi’s emails—was enough. This marked a doctrinal retrenchment from more flexible historical uses of the tort in the face of emerging technologies.

(C) It expands liability by adopting a foreseeability framework in assessing systemic vulnerability to mass communication.

Incorrect. C is incorrect because the court rejected foreseeability as a basis for liability in absence of concrete harm.

(D) It revives the early English doctrine that permitted nominal damages for technical invasions, even without demonstrable harm.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because the court rejected nominal harm as sufficient, contradicting early English doctrine.

Q.2 - Which legal interpretation best captures the theoretical structure underlying Justice Brown’s dissent in Hamidi, particularly regarding the right to exclude and the nature of digital autonomy?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) That intangible interference, though non-disruptive, constitutes actionable trespass because it undermines the normative entitlement to exclude others from proprietary platforms.

Correct! Justice Brown's dissent hinges on the concept that trespass is fundamentally about the right to exclude—her position affirms that unauthorized access, even without quantifiable harm, invades a protected possessory interest in the digital realm. This view foregrounds a rights-based property framework over a harm-based tort model.

(B) That speech communicated through uninvited channels is categorically exempt from property-based tort claims under modern free expression theory.

Incorrect. B is incorrect because speech protections were not treated as overriding tort claims categorically.

(C) That mass communication into a workplace transforms the employer into a public forum actor, triggering First Amendment scrutiny.

Incorrect. C is incorrect because Intel is not a state actor and thus cannot be converted into a public forum.

(D) That the harm element in digital trespass should hinge solely on the subjective perceptions of the system owner, not technical metrics.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because the dissent did not advocate for subjective harm alone, but a rights violation grounded in autonomy and control.

Q.3 - If the court in Hamidi had accepted Intel’s position that resource use and employee distraction constituted trespass, what latent doctrinal risk would most likely emerge in broader tort jurisprudence?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) A shift toward a negligence-based threshold for digital trespass, eroding the requirement of possessory interference.

Incorrect. A is incorrect because Intel’s claim was rooted in intentional tort, not negligence.

(B) The collapse of the boundary between trespass to chattels and nuisance, leading to the overextension of possessory torts to reputational harms.

Incorrect. B is incorrect because nuisance requires non-possessory interference with land use, which was not at issue here.

(C) The reclassification of digital speech as economic tort conduct, thereby chilling workplace criticism.

Correct! Accepting Intel’s argument would risk transforming critical or dissenting speech—especially that directed at organizational structures—into actionable tortious conduct, thereby blurring the line between digital communication and economic interference. This shift could chill legitimate speech and permit tort remedies for reputational annoyance alone.

(D) The elevation of corporate identity as a quasi-sovereign right-holder, capable of asserting informational autonomy akin to privacy rights.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because Intel did not assert sovereign or privacy-like identity rights; its argument was grounded in functional disruption.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

2m 30s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Intentional Torts

Topic Refresher Course

Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi