Search for: "New York Times Company v. Sullivan" Results 281 - 300 of 355
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2011, 12:39 pm by Deepak Gupta
" Rodgin Cohen, a partner at Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, delivered a speech in New York last month emphasizing that preemption was mostly intact after Dodd-Frank. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Another suggestion: in the four decades since New York Times v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 11:36 am by Andrew Dat
By comparison, American defamation law for public figures as defined in New York Times v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
Internet publication provides media companies with the ability to quickly redress and erroneous slight on someone’s character, as little cost or inconvenience. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
Div. 1991) (stating that New York law does not recognize a defamation claim where the plaintiff voluntarily republished the alleged defamatory words); Doe v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:20 am
The Defendants were able to ascertain that none of the players at issue were resident in Indiana at the time of death and the case was transferred to New York and went on to settle. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 1:12 am by Kevin LaCroix
The swap agreements contain choice of law and forum selection provisions that designate New York law and a New York forum. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 3:17 am by Bob Kraft
 The New York Times (10/12, Meier) reports, "The safety of vaccines is at the heart of a case expected to be heard on Tuesday by the United States Supreme Court, one that could have implications for hundreds of lawsuits that contend there is a link between vaccines and autism. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 3:14 am by Bob Kraft
The New York Times (10/12, Meier) reports, “The safety of vaccines is at the heart of a case expected to be heard on Tuesday by the United States Supreme Court, one that could have implications for hundreds of lawsuits that contend there is a link between vaccines and autism. [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 6:31 am by INFORRM
But there is a growing consensus that we need to shift, at the very least, towards the balance that emerged after the New York Times Company v Sullivan decision” This “growing consensus” does not, we are afraid, include either Inforrm or the European Court of Human Rights. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
Here is a free legal opinion thanks to the Student Press Law Center: New York Times Company v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 pm by Steven M. Taber
Tanco’s facility at 10520 Wolcott Drive, Kansas City, Kan., did not have an FRP in place at the time of a May 2009 EPA inspection, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), according to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed in Kansas City, Kan. [read post]