U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1991

Cable News Network, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Services of America, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided December 3, 1991 · Tjoflat, Fay, Kravitch, Hatchett, Anderson, Edmondson, Cox, Birch, Dubina

949 F.2d 378; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29443; 1991 WL 256865 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Christopher P. Bussert, Jerre B. Swann, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, Ga., Daniel J. Goldstein, Bruce P. Keller, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York City, for defendant-appellant., David Nimmer, Kenneth A. Liebman, Robert Aldisert, Irell & Manella, Los Ange-les, Cal., June Ann Sanders, William N. Withrow, Jr., Troutmen, Sanders, Locker-man & Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee., Francis D. Landrey, Charles S. Sims, Jon A. Baumgarten, Carole E. Handler, Pros-kauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus., Peter C. Canfield, Dow, Lohnes & Albert-son, Atlanta, Ga., Sheila F. Anthony, Diane M. Morse, Arnold P. Lutzker, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae A.H. Belo Corp.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Dielsi v. Falk (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1996)
Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo (9th Cir. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.