This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=501 U.S. 663 *111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) |date=June 24, 1991 |subject=Contracts |distinguished=Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Fa...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=June 24, 1991 | |date=June 24, 1991 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|distinguished=Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell | |appealed_from=Minnesota Supreme Court | ||
|cited=Orr v. Orr | |distinguished=Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | ||
|cited=Orr v. Orr* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | |||
{{Court opinion part | |related=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.) | ||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=majority | |opinion_type=majority | ||
|written_by=White | |written_by=White | ||
|joined_by=Rehnquist*Stevens*Scalia*Kennedy | |joined_by=Rehnquist*Stevens*Scalia*Kennedy | ||
}} | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by=Blackmun | |written_by=Blackmun | ||
|joined_by=Marshall*Souter | |joined_by=Marshall*Souter | ||
}} | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by=Souter | |written_by=Souter | ||
|joined_by=Marshall*Blackmun*O'Connor | |joined_by=Marshall*Blackmun*O'Connor | ||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
'''Holding''': | '''Holding''': | ||
Latest revision as of 05:33, September 9, 2020
| Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 501 U.S. 663 111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) |
| Date decided | June 24, 1991 |
| Appealed from | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Distinguished | Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell |
| Cited | Orr v. Orr New York Times Co. v. Sullivan |
| Related | Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.) |
| Case Opinions | |
| majority | written by White joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy |
| dissent | written by Blackmun joined by Marshall, Souter |
| dissent | written by Souter joined by Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor |
Holding:
Reversed and remanded.
Rules:
Generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the news.The information published must be lawfully acquired. The First Amendment does not confer upon the press a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law.
Issue:
Does the First Amendment bar a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality?
Dissent
The publication issued was true, and truthful speech should never be sanctioned according to the First Amendment.
