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

Eleventh Circuit

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

959 F.2d 188, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6207, 1992 WL 69640

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1992

Docket90-8798

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 959 F.2d 188 (Cable News Network, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Services of America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cable News Network, Inc. v. Video Monitoring Services of America, Inc., 959 F.2d 188, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6207, 1992 WL 69640 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

959 F.2d 188

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-8798.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

April 6, 1992.

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 Angeles, Cal., June Ann Sanders, William N. Withrow, Troutmen, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Francis D. Landrey, Charles S. Sims, Jon A. Baumgarten, Carole E. Handler, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus.

Peter C. Canfield, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Atlanta, Ga., Sheila F. Anthony, Diane M. Morse, Arnold P. Lutzker, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., for amicus A.H. Belo Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; J. Owen Forrester, Judge.

Prior report: 11th Cir., 940 F.2d 1471.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.*

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.

*

Honorable Joseph W. Hatchett and Honorable J.L. Edmondson recused themselves and did not participate in this decision

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI