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
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|appealed_from=Minnesota Supreme Court | |appealed_from=Minnesota Supreme Court | ||
|distinguished=Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | |distinguished=Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | ||
|cited=Orr v. Orr | |cited=Orr v. Orr* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | ||
|related=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.) | |related=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.) | ||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |||
{{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.