Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
855 F.2d 888 (1988)


Facts

Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc. (BSO) (defendant) contracted with Vanessa Redgrave (plaintiff) to narrate a performance. Subsequently, the BSO received numerous public complaints about Redgrave’s upcoming performance on account of Redgrave’s political support for the Palestine Liberation Organization. After receiving these complaints from the community, BSO cancelled the contract with Redgrave. Redgrave brought suit for breach of contract. Redgrave claimed that the breach resulted in a loss of future economic opportunity because many movies and theatres that would have offered her a job in the ordinary course of events did not do so because of BSO’s cancellation. In the year after the cancellation, Redgrave agreed to work on three different films. While working on those films she turned down other offers. Each of the films, however, was eventually canceled due to financial difficulties. Redgrave also presented the testimony of Theodore Mann, a Broadway producer, who stated that after considering hiring Redgrave for a play, the production company decided not to because the BSO’s cancellation “would have a negative effect on us if we hired her.” A jury found for Redgrave and awarded her $100,000 in special, or consequential, damages. BSO filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on which the district court found that although Redgrave proved damages, she could not recover on First Amendment grounds. Redgrave appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Coffin, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.