Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Zaal v. State 326 Md. 541a

Zaal v. State 326 Md. 541a

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders
discovery, school board
discovery, school board

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Jun 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Supreme Court of the United StatesCOX BROADCASTING CORPORATION et al.,Appellants,v.Martin COHN.
No. 73-938.
Argued Nov. 11, 1974.Decided March 3, 1975.Father of deceased rape victim brought actionagainst broadcasting company and others to recoverdamages for invasion of father's right of privacy,which invasion allegedly occurred when broadcast-ing company, in contravention of Georgia statute,identified the victim during television coverage of the trial of the alleged rapists. The Superior Court,Fulton County, granted father's motion for sum-mary judgment. The Georgia SupremeCourt, 231Ga. 60, 200 S.E.2d 127,held that the statute wasnot in conflict with the First Amendment but re-versed grant of summary judgment and remandedfor further proceedings. Defendants sought Su-preme Court review by way of appeal. The Su-preme Court, Mr. Justice White, held that the courthad jurisdiction of the appeal, that a state may not,consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amend-ments, impose sanctions on the accurate publicationof a rape victim's name obtained from judicial re-cords that are maintained in connection with a pub-lic prosecution and are themselves open to publicinspection, that the interest of privacy fades whenthe information involved appears on a public recordand that where the television reporter based his re-port on notes taken during court proceedings andobtained rape victim's name from official courtdocuments open to public inspection the constitu-tional protection of freedom of the press barredGeorgia from making his broadcast the basis of civil liability.Reversed.Mr. Justice Powell filed a concurring opinion.Mr. Chief Justice Burger concurred in the judg-ment.Mr. Justice Douglas filed an opinion concurring inthe judgment.Mr. Justice Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion.West Headnotes
[1]Federal Courts 170B 506
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk504Nature of Decisions or Ques-tions Involved170Bk506k.CriminalMatters; Habeas Corpus.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k394(3))Supreme Court had jurisdiction over appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia holdingthat Georgia statute making it a misdemeanor topublish or broadcast a name or identity of a rapevictim was a legitimate limitation on the right of freedom of expression contained in the FirstAmendment. Code Ga. § 26-9901;28 U.S.C.A. §§1257(2),2103;U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1,14.
[2]Federal Courts 170B 506
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk504Nature of Decisions or Ques-tions Involved170Bk506k.CriminalMatters; Habeas Corpus.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k394(3))Constitutional validity of Georgia statute making ita misdemeanor to publish or broadcast name or95 S.Ct. 1029 Page 1420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 32 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1511, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, 1 Media L. Rep. 1819
(Cite as: 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
identity of a rape victim was “drawn in question,”within meaning of statute governing appellate juris-diction of the Supreme Court, where not only wassuch issue raised in the broadcaster's motion for re-hearing in tort action but, also, since the GeorgiaCourt relied on the statute as a declaration of thepublic policy of Georgia that disclosure of a rapevictim's name was not to be protected expression,the statute was drawn in question in a manner dir-ectly bearing on the merits of the action; decision infavor of its constitutional validity invoked SupremeCourt's appellate jurisdiction. Code Ga. § 26-9901;28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1257(2),2103;U.S.C.A.Const. Amends.1,14.
[3]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)Fact that there remain matters to be disposed of byfurther proceedings in a lower state court after thehighest state court has finally determined a federalissue does not mean that the determination of thehighest state court is not a “final judgment or de-cree,” within meaning of statute governing Su-preme Court review of a final judgment or decreerendered by the highest court of the state; such situ-ations include the case where additional proceed-ings would not require a decision on other federalquestions that might also require review by the Su-preme Court at a later date and immediate ratherthan delayed review would be the best way to avoidthe mischief of economic waste and of delayed justice as well as precipitous interference with statelitigation.28 U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[4]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)A judgment or decree of the highest state court on afederal issue is “final,” for purposes of SupremeCourt review, notwithstanding that there are furtherproceedings, even entire trials, yet to occur in thestate court where, for one reason or another, thefederal issue is conclusive or the outcome of furtherproceedings preordained.28 U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[5]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)Where a federal issue, finally decided by thehighest court in the state, will survive and requiredecision regardless of the outcome of future statecourt proceedings, the judgment or decree of suchcourt on the federal issue is “final,” for purposes of United States Supreme Court review, notwithstand-ing anticipated additional proceedings in a lowerstate court.28 U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[6]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)A decision of the highest state court on a federal is-sue is “final,” for purposes of United States Su-preme Court review, notwithstanding that addition-al proceedings are anticipated in a lower state court,where later review of the federal issue cannot behad whatever the ultimate outcome of the case,such as where governing state law would not permit95 S.Ct. 1029 Page 2420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 32 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1511, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, 1 Media L. Rep. 1819
(Cite as: 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
the litigant to again present his federal claims forreview; in such cases, if the party seeking interimreview ultimately prevails on the merits the federalissue will be mooted but if he loses on the merits heis denied the right to prevail on the federal issue.28U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[7]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)Although a federal issue has been finally decidedby the highest state court, with further proceedingspending in which the party seeking review mightprevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, the de-cision of the highest state court on the federal issueis “final,” for purposes of United States SupremeCourt review, where reversal of the state court onthe federal issue would be preclusive of any furtherlitigation on a relevant cause of action rather thanmerely controlling the nature and character of, ordetermining the admissibility of the evidence in, thestate proceedings still to come; in such cases, if arefusal immediately to review the state court de-cision might seriously erode federal policy, the Su-preme Court will entertain and decide the federalissue.28 U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[8]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)Decision of Georgia Supreme Court that statutemaking it a misdemeanor to publish or broadcastthe name or identity of a rape victim was not inconflict with First Amendment was a “finalde-cree, notwithstanding that further state court pro-ceedings were anticipated or that broadcaster mightprevail on nonfederal grounds, since determinationwas not subject to further review in state court,broadcaster would be liable if elements of the statetort action were proved, litigation could be termin-ated by Supreme Court's decision on the merits andfailure to decide free speech question would leavethe Georgia press operating in the shadow of civiland criminal sanctions of a statute whose constitu-tionality was in serious doubt. Code Ga. § 26-9901;28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1257(2),2103;U.S.C.A.Const. Amends.1,14.
[9]Federal Courts 170B 503
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(E)Review of Decisions of State Courts170Bk503k. Finality of Determination.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k393)That a petitioner who protests against a decision of a highest state court on a federal question mightprevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds incourse of further proceedings anticipated in thestate court and, hence, obviate later review of thefederal issue is not preclusive of the SupremeCourt's jurisdiction under the finality test since if asubstantial federal issue has been arguably wrong-fully decided and such issue would be determinat-ive of litigation if decided the other way the finalityrule is satisfied.28 U.S.C.A. § 1257.
[10]Federal Courts 170B 451
170BFederal Courts170BVIISupreme Court170BVII(B)Review of Decisions of Courts of Appeals170Bk451k. Appeal.Most Cited Cases Supreme Court follows a pragmatic approach in de-termining whether a decision of the highest statecourt on a federal issue is a “final judgment or de-cree” within meaning of statute limiting Supreme95 S.Ct. 1029 Page 3420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 32 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1511, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, 1 Media L. Rep. 1819
(Cite as: 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->