U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1992

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided April 6, 1992 · Anderson, Birch, Cox, Dubina, Fay, Kravitch, Tjoflat

959 F.2d 188 (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, Troutmen, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-ap-pellee., 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 A.H. Belo Corp.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Cable News Network, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Services of America, Inc. (11th 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 of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Since the district court has entered a permanent injunction, and since the validity of that permanent injunction is not before us, it is not judicious for this court to grant the relief being sought on appeal. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). Any issues preserved by the injunction bond should be addressed in the first instance by the district court. Id. at 396, 101 S.Ct. at 1834.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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