 |
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.
m (DeRien moved page Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (Minn.) to Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990): 1st of 3 cases; 1990 case) |
(This 1990 holding is appealed to SCOTUS in Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991).) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from=Minnesota State Court of Appeals | |appealed_from=Minnesota State Court of Appeals | ||
|related=Cohen v. Cowles Media | |related=Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991)* Cohen v. Cowles Media (1992) | ||
|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. | |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. | |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=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)]]. | |||
|judgment=Reversed. | |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 | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cohen-v-cowles-media-co--2 | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cohen-v-cowles-media-co--2 | ||
| Line 17: | Line 25: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:46, 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 (1991) Cohen v. Cowles Media (1992) |
| 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.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).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.
