Citation network
Nixon Vs. Warner Communications, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 18, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Nixon v. WarnerSearch
-
Communications, Inc. - 435 U.S. 589 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. WarnerSearch
-
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nixon v. WarnerSearch
-
public, as the contents of the tapes were given wide publicity by all elements of the media, Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
that the District Court's refusal to permit immediate copying of the tapes was an abuse of discretion. United States v. MitchellSearch
-
of Columbia ordered production of the recordings. In re Subpoena to Nixon, 360 F.Supp. 1, aff'd sub nom. Nixon v. SiricaSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Presidential meetings and conversations. The District Court denied petitioner's motions to quash. United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Supp. 1326 (1974). This Court granted certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeals, and affirmed. United States v. NixonSearch
-
to the public the portions of the tapes played at trial. Petitioner opposed the application. Because United States v. MitchellSearch
-
respondents to obtain copies of exhibits in the custody of the clerk, including the tapes in question. United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Judge Sirica denied without prejudice respondents' petitions for immediate access to the tapes. United States v. MitchellSearch
-
release was not of overriding importance. 397 F.Supp. at 189. The Court of Appeals reversed. United States v. MitchellSearch
-
In contrast to the English practice, see, e.g., Browne v. CummingSearch
-
in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. KingSearch
-
Ferry v. WilliamsSearch
-
publisher's intention to publish information concerning the operation of government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. OwensSearch
-
N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d 241 (1966). But see Burton v. ReynoldsSearch
-
A.2d 717, 723, 727 (Del.1974). See also King v. KingSearch
-
courts have refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption, Park v. DetroitSearch
-
Cowley v. PulsiferSearch
-
Munzer v. BlaisdellSearch
-
Sanford v. BostonSearch
-
or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing, see, e.g., Schmedding v. MaySearch
-
Flecmir, Inc. v. HermanSearch
-
In respondents' view, our decision in Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
had every reason to believe would remain confidential. Third, petitioner argues that our decision in United States v. NixonSearch
-
Page 435 U. S. 604 In Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
United States v. MonjarSearch
-
Amendment guarantee of a public trial. Neither supports respondents' conclusion. A In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
U. S. 532 , 381 U. S. 589 (1965) Page 435 U. S. 610 (Harlan, J., concurring). Cf. Saxbe v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 817 (1974). See also Zemel v. RuskSearch
-
testimony of a live witness, yet there is no constitutional right to have such testimony recorded and broadcast. Estes v. TexasSearch
-
In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 , 333 U. S. 270 (1948), it confers no special benefit on the press. Estes v. TexasSearch
-
of justice, and perjury. The convictions of Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman were affirmed. United States v. HaldemanSearch
-
C. 254, 559 F.2d 31 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 (1977). Mardian's conviction was reversed, United States v. MardianSearch
-
As the time for trial in U.S. v. MitchellSearch
-
For a detailed discussion of the terms and validity of the Act, see Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
McCoy v. ProvidenceSearch
-
Fayette County v. MartinSearch
-
Nowack v. AuditorSearch
-
Nevada Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. GrimesSearch
-
Brewer v. WatsonSearch
-
Gibson v. PellerSearch
-
Williston Herald, Inc. v. O'ConnellSearch
-
the District of Columbia since at least 1894. Ex parte Drawbaugh, 2 App.D.C. 404 (1894). See also United States v. BurkaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial