Also known as: sponsores · sponsorship · surety · guarantor
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A secondary obligor who undertakes to answer for the debt or default of another. The obligation arises when the sponsor manifests an intention to confer a right on the beneficiary and the beneficiary reasonably relies on that promise.
A secondary obligor who undertakes to answer for the debt or default of another. The obligation arises when the sponsor manifests an intention to confer a right on the beneficiary and the beneficiary reasonably relies on that promise.
Summit Bank retained Sterling Dynamics to prepare litigation strategy documents for an upcoming contract dispute. When Sierra Solutions sought those materials in discovery, the court applied the work product rule and denied production because the documents were prepared by or for a representative of Summit Bank in anticipation of litigation.
A person or entity that proposes or provides support for legislation or advocacy. The sponsor's identity may receive First Amendment protection when the support takes the form of electoral advocacy.
Sterling Dynamics funded a series of advertisements supporting a ballot measure. When the FEC sought to restrict the expenditures, the court held that the corporate sponsor's independent advocacy received full First Amendment protection regardless of the sponsor's identity.
A person or entity that proposes or provides support for legislation or advocacy. The sponsor's identity may receive First Amendment protection when the support takes the form of electoral advocacy.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A sponsor's promise to answer for the debt of another is subject to the statute of frauds and must be evidenced by a signed writing unless the main purpose doctrine applies. The Restatement illustrations confirm that the sponsor's manifestation of intent must make reliance by the beneficiary reasonable and probable.
Senator Simon Stern sponsored legislation limiting soft-money contributions by corporations. Challengers argued the restrictions violated the First Amendment, but the court upheld the provisions as applied to the sponsor's regulatory scheme.
A member of Congress sponsored a private bill to suspend Jagdish Rai Chadha's deportation. When the House vetoed the suspension, the court ruled the one-house veto unconstitutional because the sponsor's legislative effort could not be overridden by a single chamber.
A candidate's committee sponsored spending caps on independent expenditures. The court struck down the limits because the sponsor could not constitutionally restrict the quantity of political speech by others.
The Boy Scouts sponsored a public message excluding a gay scoutmaster. When the scoutmaster sued under state antidiscrimination law, the court held that the sponsor's First Amendment right to control its expressive message prevailed.
A corporate sponsor receives full protection when it engages in independent electoral advocacy rather than coordinated expenditures. The Court in Citizens United held that the identity of the sponsor does not strip the speech of protection.
Private sponsors of a ballot measure lack appellate standing when they assert only a generalized interest in the measure's enforceability and suffer no personal concrete injury. The district court correctly denied standing in such circumstances.
A gratuitous grant supports a narrower construction of the easement scope. The sponsor may not expand the use beyond game-day overflow parking because the lack of consideration weighs against reading the grant expansively.
…history of the Fourteenth Amendment in its reliance on the "compelling state interest" test. See Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. , 406 U. S. 164, 179 (1972) (dissenting opinion). But the Court adds a new wrinkle to this test by transposing it from the legal considerations associated with the Equal Protection…