 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=501 U.S. 663 *111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) |date=June 24, 1991 |subject=Contracts |distinguished=Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Fa...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=June 24, 1991 | |date=June 24, 1991 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|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 | ||
}} | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=majority | |opinion_type=majority | ||
|opinion_order=1 | |opinion_order=1 | ||
|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 | ||
|opinion_order=2 | |opinion_order=2 | ||
|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 | ||
|opinion_order=3 | |opinion_order=3 | ||
Revision as of 20:38, January 31, 2020
| Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991) | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 501 U.S. 663 111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) |
| Date decided | June 24, 1991 |
| Distinguished | Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell |
| Cited | Orr v. Orr, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1"
!majority
|written by White
joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy
|-|- cellpadding="10" border="1"
!dissent
|written by Blackmun
joined by Marshall, Souter
|-|- cellpadding="10" border="1"
!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.
