{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Cohen v. Cowles Media

Cohen v. Cowles Media - misrepresentation claim On review...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Procedural History: Rule: Rationale: Dan Cohen, petitioner, Respondent, v. Cowles Media Company SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA (1992) The trial court awarded damages in favor of π in action against . The Court of Appeals set aside recovery on fraudulent misrepresentation claim, but affirmed recovery on breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court of Minnesota found that π was not entitled to recovery on either claim. The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded π provided information to based on ’s' promise of confidentiality. breached the promise of confidentiality and π ’s employer terminated his employment, following the publication of a controversial story. π initiated an action against on the theories of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court granted recovery on both theories, but the intermediate appellate court reversed as to the fraudulent
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: misrepresentation claim. On review, the court denied recovery on both claims. The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the court affirmed the jury verdict for $200,000, but on promissory estoppel grounds. In reaching its decision, the court held that news source's failure to plead promissory estoppel did not bar him from asserting the theory on appeal. The court explained that it was not unfair to ∆ to decide the case on the basis of promissory estoppel, because the case involved a novel legal issue, where the court adopted an approach closely akin to the theory on which the case was originally pled and tried. The court affirmed the decision of the intermediate appellate court on remand, but on the basis of promissory estoppel. Thus, the court affirmed the verdict in favor of π for compensatory damages in the amount of $ 200,000....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}