Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991): Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|citation=501 U.S. 663 *111 S. Ct. 2513 | |citation=501 U.S. 663 *111 S. Ct. 2513 | ||
|date=June 24, 1991 | |date=June 24, 1991 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from=Minnesota Supreme Court | |appealed_from=Minnesota Supreme Court | ||
|overturned=Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990) | |||
|distinguished=Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | |distinguished=Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | ||
|cited=Orr v. Orr* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | |cited=Orr v. Orr* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | ||
|related=Cohen v. Cowles Media | |related=Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990) | ||
|issues=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? | |||
|holding=[[Promissory estoppel]] doesn't implicate the [[1st Amendment]]. | |||
This case goes back to the Minnesota Supreme Court in [[Cohen v. Cowles Media (1992)]]. | |||
|rule=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. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/663/ | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | |||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=majority | |opinion_type=majority | ||
Line 25: | Line 37: | ||
Reversed and remanded. | Reversed and remanded. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:15, September 3, 2023
Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991) | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | 501 U.S. 663 111 S. Ct. 2513 |
Date decided | June 24, 1991 |
Appealed from | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Overturned | Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990) |
Distinguished | Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell |
Cited | Orr v. Orr New York Times Co. v. Sullivan |
Related | Cohen v. Cowles Media (1990) |
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 |
Issues
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?
Holding
Promissory estoppel doesn't implicate the 1st Amendment.
This case goes back to the Minnesota Supreme Court in Cohen v. Cowles Media (1992).Rule
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.Resources
Holding:
Reversed and remanded.
Dissent
The publication issued was true, and truthful speech should never be sanctioned according to the First Amendment.