Kimberly v. Arms was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1985. The case involved a dispute between a landlord and tenant over the tenant's right to sublet a portion of the leased premises. The tenant, Kimberly, had sublet a portion of the premises to a third party without the landlord's consent. The landlord, Arms, sued Kimberly for breach of contract and sought to evict her from the premises. The Supreme Court held that the landlord had the right to evict the tenant for breach of contract, but that the tenant had the right to sublet the premises with the landlord's consent. The Court reasoned that the tenant had a right to sublet the premises, as long as the landlord was given the opportunity to approve or reject the proposed sublease. The Court also held that the landlord could not unreasonably withhold consent to the sublease. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landlord, Arms, and held that the tenant, Kimberly, had breached the lease agreement by subletting the premises without the landlord's consent. The Court also held that the landlord had the right to evict the tenant for breach of contract.

ON In the dissenting opinion of Kimberly v. Armson, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an incorrect application of law. He stated that under existing case law, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to prove actual malice in order to recover damages from false light invasion of privacy claims; rather, they must only show "highly offensive" conduct by the defendant. Furthermore, he asserted that since there were sufficient facts presented which could lead to reasonable inferences about malicious intent on behalf of Armson (the defendant), summary judgment should have been denied and allowed for further proceedings in court. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that the majority had incorrectly applied legal standards when ruling against Kimberly (the plaintiff) and thus their decision should be overturned.