Search for: "Thomas v. Sullivan" Results 1 - 20 of 499
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 May 2024, 10:50 am by Amy Howe
District Judge Thomas McAvoy allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to go forward. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
"Translation: I have now been subject to a "high tech lynching" and to word bombs as harmful as real bombs, and that is why, and the only real reason why, I want to overturn New York Times v Sullivan. [read post]
17 Mar 2024, 7:17 pm by Amy Howe
Sullivan that “informal, indirect government efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violate the First Amendment. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 3:52 am by Frank Cranmer
The conviction of Rausing aside, however, since R v Hunter in 1974 there appear to have been nine fully-reported cases of the offence in England and Wales: R v Swindell (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 255; R v Parry and McLean (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 470; R v Skinner (Patrick and Ian) (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 115; R v Godward [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 385;  R v Lang (Jack Thomas) [2001] EWCA Crim 2690, [2002] 2… [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm by Gianna Hill
Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 5:49 am
In another notable victory for the Plaintiff's bar at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court level, that Court, in the case of Sullivan v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am by John Elwood
NBCUniversal was denied as anticipated, which drew a separate opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas noting that he would be inclined to reconsider New York Times v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 7:08 am by Eugene Volokh
Sullivan, and Justice Kagan, back in 1993 (when she was an academic), criticized New York Times v. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm by John Elwood
While both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have criticized Sullivan and called for it to be overruled, it seems unlikely that the court will grant review; just last term, the court relied on Sullivan in holding that threats could not be prosecuted under the First Amendment absent proof they were made in reckless disregard that the listener would be placed in fear. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 12:08 am by David Pocklington
: on Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance [2023] UKET 2409635/2022, which we noted here. [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The justices faced heightened security risks, Thomas noted, after the leak of the court’s majority opinion to overturn Roe v. [read post]