¶1(concurring [dissenting as to the further stay]). After viewing the proposed broadcast tape, I conclude *395that this is investigative reporting done with restraint and high purpose. No injunction was warranted under any view of the First Amendment. The stay and any restraint should be vacated immediately.
51 A.D.2d 391
Quinn v. Johnson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 5, 1976
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1976-04-05
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2002
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1976-04-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →