Search for: "Medics, Inc. v. Sullivan" Results 1 - 20 of 142
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am by John Elwood
Sullivan, which holds that public figures cannot recover for defamation consistent with the First Amendment unless they demonstrate the press acted recklessly or knowing their statements were false. [read post]
4 May 2023, 5:16 am by Daphne Keller
Similarly, in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
If you just blithely ignore it, and publish the story despite having been told that it may well be mistaken, that would be textbook "reckless disregard," which would allow liability even in a public official case: Consider, for instance, Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 11:50 am by Jared Green
HitchcockClinic, Inc.7 Citing the predecessor to today’s Superior Court Rule 26(j), Judge Sullivan held that the questions “are not subject to any privilege and are not excused by the statute governing deposition. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 11:50 am by Jared Green
HitchcockClinic, Inc.7 Citing the predecessor to today’s Superior Court Rule 26(j), Judge Sullivan held that the questions “are not subject to any privilege and are not excused by the statute governing deposition. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 10:32 am by Michael Oykhman
Cases such as R v Nygaard, 1989 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 1074, R v Jacquard, 1997 CanLII 374 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 314, and R v More, 1963 CanLII 805 (MBCA) have helped us establish notions of what “planned and deliberate” murder entails. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 4:22 am by Emma Snell
’s first dedicated medical evacuation plane, which has been operational since March. [read post]