Moving truck icon.png Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org

Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990): Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
(https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cohen-v-cowles-media-co--2)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
| court                 = Supreme Court of Minnesota
|court=Minnesota Supreme Court
| citation             = 457 N.W.2d 199 (1990)
|citation=457 N.W.2d 199
| date                 = 1990
|date=1990
| subject               = Contracts
|subject=Contracts
| appealed_from         = Minnesota State Court of Appeals
|appealed_from=Minnesota State Court of Appeals
| overturned            =  
|related=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
| partially_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.
| reaffirmed            =  
|procedural_history=The jury awarded Cohen $200,000 compensatory damages, and $250,000 punitive damages.
| questioned            =  
 
| criticized            =  
The appeals court set aside the punitive damages, because misrepresentation had not been proved.
| distinguished        =  
|judgment=Reversed.
| cited                =  
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| followed              =  
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cohen-v-cowles-media-co--2
| related              = Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
|source_type=Summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}
}}
'''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.
'''Issues'''
'''Issues'''


Line 30: Line 22:




'''Holding/Decision'''
'''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.
 
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.
'''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.

Revision as of 19:40, September 3, 2023

Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990)
Court Minnesota Supreme Court
Citation 457 N.W.2d 199
Date decided 1990
Appealed from Minnesota State Court of Appeals
Related Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
Overturned by
Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)

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.

Judgment

Reversed.

Resources

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.


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.

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Cohen_v._Cowles_Media_(1990)&oldid=46726"