From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rand v. Hearst Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 19, 1970
26 N.Y.2d 806 (N.Y. 1970)

Summary

stating that phrases such as “advertising purposes” and for the “purposes of trade ... must be construed narrowly and not used to curtail the right of free speech, or free press, or to shut off the publication of matters newsworthy or of public interest, or to prevent comment on matters in which the public has an interest or the right to be informed”

Summary of this case from Stayart v. Google Inc.

Opinion

Argued January 13, 1970

Decided February 19, 1970

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, IRWIN D. DAVIDSON, J.

Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer for appellant.

Alfred H. Wasserstrom and Sherman H. Saiger for respondent.

Horace S. Manges, Edward C. Wallace and Marshall C. Berger for American Book Publishers Council, Inc., amicus curiae. Irwin Karp for Authors League of America, Inc., amicus curiae.


Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON. Taking no part: Judge BURKE.


Summaries of

Rand v. Hearst Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 19, 1970
26 N.Y.2d 806 (N.Y. 1970)

stating that phrases such as “advertising purposes” and for the “purposes of trade ... must be construed narrowly and not used to curtail the right of free speech, or free press, or to shut off the publication of matters newsworthy or of public interest, or to prevent comment on matters in which the public has an interest or the right to be informed”

Summary of this case from Stayart v. Google Inc.
Case details for

Rand v. Hearst Corporation

Case Details

Full title:AYN RAND, Appellant, v. HEARST CORPORATION, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 19, 1970

Citations

26 N.Y.2d 806 (N.Y. 1970)
309 N.Y.S.2d 348
257 N.E.2d 895

Citing Cases

Stern v. Delphi Internet

(See, Civil Rights Law § 50; Cohen v Herbal Concepts, 63 N.Y.2d 379, 383.) These provisions must be construed…

Stylianides v. De Lorean Motor Co.

Thus a movant for relief runs the risk of a dismissal of his own pleading. ( Id., § 269; Rand v Hearst Corp.,…