Case Name: CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-04-06
Citations: 959 F.2d 188
Docket Number: No. 90-8798
Parties: CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 959
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-8798.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 6, 1992.
Christopher P. Bussert, Jerre B. Swann, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, Ga., Daniel J. Goldstein, Bruce P. Keller, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
David Nimmer, Kenneth A. Liebman, Robert Aldisert, Irell & Manella, Los Ange-les, Cal., June Ann Sanders, William N. Withrow, Troutmen, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.
Francis D. Landrey, Charles S. Sims, Jon A. Baumgarten, Carole E. Handler, Pros-kauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus.
Peter C. Canfield, Dow, Lohnes & Albert-son, Atlanta, Ga., Sheila F. Anthony, Diane M. Morse, Arnold P. Lutzker, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., for amicus A.H. Belo Corp.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Joseph W. Hatchett and Honorable J.L. Edmondson recused themselves and did not participate in this decision.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Since the district court has entered a permanent injunction, and since the validity of that permanent injunction is not before us, it is not judicious for this court to grant the relief being sought on appeal. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). Any issues preserved by the injunction bond should be addressed in the first instance by the district court. Id. at 396, 101 S.Ct. at 1834.
IT IS SO ORDERED.