Скачать или смотреть Bose Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Bose Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. | 466 U.S. 485 (1984)

Under Rule Fifty Two A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the F R C P, appellate courts may only review a trial court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard of review. But what if a trial court’s findings involve mixed findings of law and fact? The United States Supreme Court considered this question in Bose Corporation versus Consumers Union of United States.

In nineteen seventy, Consumers Union of United States, now Consumer Reports, published a magazine article where it reviewed the quality of many different brands of loudspeakers.

In the article, Consumer Reports reviewed a pair of Bose speakers and stated that the speakers made individual instruments sound gigantic and that the sound tended to wander about the room.

Subsequently, Bose sued Consumer Reports in federal district court for product disparagement. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of Bose with regard to the second statement in the article that the sound tended to wander about the room.

Specifically, the court found that Bose was a public figure, and therefore, under New York Times versus Sullivan, Bose was required to prove that Consumer Reports made the statement with actual malice. This standard required Bose to prove that Consumer Reports made the statement actually knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

The court then concluded that Bose met its burden of proving that Consumer Reports made the statement with actual malice.

Consumer Reports appealed to the First Circuit, which reversed. In so reversing, the court stated that its review of the district court’s finding that the statement was made with actual malice wasn’t limited to the clearly erroneous standard because it was a mixed finding of law and fact.

The court then held that there wasn’t clear and convincing evidence that Consumer Reports made the statement with actual malice. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bose-co...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bose-co...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  

Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries