Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers
Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers
Michigan Law Review
Until recently, regulation and antitrust law operated in tandem to safeguard competition in regulated industries. In three recent decisions-Trinko, Credit Suisse, and Linkline-the Supreme Court limited the operation of the antitrust laws when regulation "performs the antitrust function." This Note argues that cable programming regulations-which are in some respects factually similar to the telecommunications regulations at issue in Trinko and Linkline-do not perform the antitrust function because they cannot deter anticompetitive conduct. As a result, Trinko and its siblings should not foreclose antitrust claims for damages that arise out of certain cable programming disputes.
Long Live The Lie Bill!, Lucila I. Van Dam
Long Live The Lie Bill!, Lucila I. Van Dam
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
What successful defamation plaintiffs typically desire and doctrinally deserve is to have their reputations restored. Presently, however, a plaintiff who has established that she was defamed by the defendant is entitled only to an award of damages, which does nothing to restore reputation. This Note proposes that in addition to a damages award, courts-- if they are to take seriously their obligation to compensate the plaintiff-- should order the defendant to retract the defamatory statement. Contrary to the prevailing view, this Note argues that the proposed retraction order does not jeopardize the First Amendment guarantee of free expression.
Libel And Slander - Publication - Common Interest In Subject Matter, Michigan Law Review
Libel And Slander - Publication - Common Interest In Subject Matter, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Attorneys for plaintiff wrote a letter to a bus company claiming damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of the bus company. This letter was referred to the insurer of the bus company. Insurer, in reply, wrote a letter charging the plaintiff with an attempt to defraud, calling him a shyster lawyer, and making other disparaging remarks. Although intended for the bus company, this letter was inadvertently sent to plaintiff's attorneys. In a libel action brought against the bus company and the insurance company, the defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the communication was privileged. Held, between the …
Libel And Slander - Slander Of Title As A Protection Against Unfair Interference With Sale Of Literary Work, James W. Mehaffy
Libel And Slander - Slander Of Title As A Protection Against Unfair Interference With Sale Of Literary Work, James W. Mehaffy
Michigan Law Review
In a slander of title action, the complaint alleged that defendant requested plaintiffs to write a motion picture scenario based on historical events, but after plaintiffs submitted the scenario, defendant rejected it. Thereafter defendant announced its intention, by filing a statement with a voluntary association of motion picture producers, to produce a picture based on the same plot as that contained in plaintiffs' scenario. As a result, plaintiffs were unable to sell their scenario to any other producer. Held, that the complaint was insufficient in the absence of an allegation of special damages. Carrol v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. …