This HTML5 document contains 23 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Tory v. Cochran

rdfs:comment

Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel. The case began in California with Johnnie Cochran, the famed attorney who represented O.J. Simpson, suing his former client Ulysses Tory for libel and invasion of privacy. Cochran had withdrawn as Tory’s lawyer in a civil rights suit nearly twenty years earlier, and in the late 1990s Tory began picketing Cochran’s office, carrying signs that accused him of being a thief and of accepting bribes. A trial judge ruled that Tory had made false and defamatory statements about Cochran, and instead of awarding him damages, issued an injunction ordering Tory to never again display a sign or speak about Cochran. Tory appealed, arguing that the order was a prior restraint that violated his First Amendment rig

owl:sameAs

n18:_Cochran

n27:

Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg

dcterms:subject

n8: n14: n15:

n21:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n22:

n25:

544

n9:

Thomas

n13:

Breyer

n20:

2005

n10:

--03-22

n19:

Tory v. Cochran

n12:

172800.0

n24:

On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District

n11:

2005

n26:

1994

n3:

Scalia

n5:

Ulysses Tory, et al., Petitioners v. Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.

n23:

--05-31

n16:

734

n4:abstract

Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel. The case began in California with Johnnie Cochran, the famed attorney who represented O.J. Simpson, suing his former client Ulysses Tory for libel and invasion of privacy. Cochran had withdrawn as Tory’s lawyer in a civil rights suit nearly twenty years earlier, and in the late 1990s Tory began picketing Cochran’s office, carrying signs that accused him of being a thief and of accepting bribes. A trial judge ruled that Tory had made false and defamatory statements about Cochran, and instead of awarding him damages, issued an injunction ordering Tory to never again display a sign or speak about Cochran. Tory appealed, arguing that the order was a prior restraint that violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the order was constitutional. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case, and on April 24, 2004, Tory filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was granted, briefing followed and the oral argument took place on March 22, 2005. Cochran died seven days later and the court asked for further briefing. On May 31, 2005, the court ruled 7-2 that in light of Cochran's death, the injunction limiting the demonstrations of Ulysses Tory "amounts to an overly broad prior restraint upon speech." Two justices with typically conservative views, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that Cochran's death made it unnecessary for the court to rule.