Search for: "SULLIVAN V. SULLIVAN"
Results 3021 - 3040
of 4,091
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2010, 3:10 pm
Sullivan line of cases, there cannot be. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 5:45 pm
State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 2:00 pm
A Musical Experience + Helmut Lang + Henna by Senya + House of Leifer + J&J Snack Foods Corporation + J and V Audio Inc. + JAKKS Pacific, Inc. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:09 am
” Marquart v. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 7:24 am
Florida, No. 08-7412, and Sullivan v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 9:08 am
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 10:05 am
The decision below is here; the only discussion there is: The petitioner failed to demonstrate “proper cause” for the issuance of a “full carry” permit (Penal Law § 400.00[2][f]; Matter of Hecht v Bivona, 11 AD3d 614; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691). [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:15 am
Distinguishing between an individual’s “domicile” and his or her “residence” for the purpose of meeting a “residence requirement” for employmentMatter of Ball v City of Syracuse, 2010 NY Slip Op 01037, decided on February 11, 2010, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe Syracuse City Charter provides that employees "shall be at the time of their appointment and continue to be during their continuance in the employment of the city, residents of… [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 6:37 am
The New York Times reports on the Andrew Sullivan vs. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 11:31 pm
Lawsuit for libel brought against public official turns on whether the statements objected to were uttered with “actual malice”Shulman v Hunderfund, 12 NY3d 143In the words of Justice Smith, “In this action for libel by a public figure, the record does not clearly and convincingly show that the statements in question were made with "actual malice," as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]). [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 8:05 am
TERRY SULLIVAN, Defendant and Appellee. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 6:33 am
Gelstein, the New York Court of Appeals noted: Under the [New York] Times [Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254)] malice standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” (Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 74). [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 8:16 am
United States and Shell Oil v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 9:08 am
” Mazer v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 6:35 am
Sullivan v. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 7:27 am
Hinnigan In Sullivan v. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 7:27 am
Hinnigan In Sullivan v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 3:18 pm
Bercier, 2004 BCSC 752; Sullivan v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 12:12 pm
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which affords First Amendment protection to reporters against frivolous suits. [read post]
