Editing Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990)

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Minnesota Supreme Court
| court                 = Supreme Court of Minnesota
|citation=457 N.W.2d 199
| citation             = 457 N.W.2d 199 (1990)
|date=1990
| date                 = 1990
|subject=Contracts
| subject               = Contracts
|appealed_from=Minnesota State Court of Appeals
| appealed_from         = Minnesota State Court of Appeals
|related=Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)* Cohen v. Cowles Media (1992)
| overturned            =
|facts=The plaintiff, Dan Cohen, was promised by the defendants Northwest Publications, Inc. and the Pioneer Press that his name would not be disclosed in exchange for some documents which leaked information about a politician running in an upcoming election. They decided to print his name as the source of the information, against the reporter’s judgment.
| partially_overturned  =
|procedural_history=The jury awarded Cohen $200,000 compensatory damages, and $250,000 punitive damages.  
| reaffirmed            =
| questioned            =
| criticized            =
| distinguished        =
| cited                =
| followed              =
| related               = Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
}}
'''Relevant Facts'''
 
The plaintiff, Dan Cohen, was promised by the defendants Northwest Publications, Inc. and the Pioneer Press that his name would not be disclosed in exchange for some documents which leaked information about a politician running in an upcoming election. They decided to print his name as the source of the information, against the reporter’s judgment.
 
 
'''Procedural History'''
 
The jury awarded Cohen $200,000 compensatory damages, and $250,000 punitive damages. The appeals court set aside the punitive damages, because misrepresentation had not been proved.
 


The appeals court set aside the punitive damages, because misrepresentation had not been proved.
'''Issues'''
|issues=Whether the first amendment prohibits a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper’s breach of a promise of confidentiality given to the plaintiff in exchange for information.
|holding=The court considered enforcing the confidentiality promise under [[promissory estoppel]], but the '''Minnesota Supreme Court''' ultimately decided to elevate the newspapers' First Amendment rights.


This 1990 holding is appealed to SCOTUS in [[Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)]].
Whether the first amendment prohibits a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper’s breach of a promise of confidentiality given to the plaintiff in exchange for information.
|judgment=Reversed.
|rule=In deciding whether it would be unjust not to enforce the promise, the court must necessarily weigh the same considerations that are weighed for whether the First Amendment has been violated.
|comments=Conclusion


It seems that the law best leaves the parties to trust in each other, so that freedom of press is more important than enforcing this contract.
 
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
'''Holding/Decision'''
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cohen-v-cowles-media-co--2
 
|source_type=Summary
Judgment reversed.'''Rules'''In deciding whether it would be unjust not to enforce the promise, the court must necessarily weigh the same considerations that are weighed for whether the First Amendment has been violated.'''Conclusion'''It seems that the law best leaves the parties to trust in each other, so that freedom of press is more important than enforcing this contract.
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)