Search for: "Sullivan v. Sullivan"
Results 3321 - 3340
of 3,721
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2023, 7:54 am
In Buckley v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
26 Mar 2025, 1:03 pm
Maryland v. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 4:20 pm
Sullivan (1963). [read post]
19 Dec 2024, 2:45 pm
Sullivan (1964) (public officials must show falsity and actual malice); Garrison v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 10:12 am
Sullivan. [read post]
20 Oct 2006, 1:49 pm
Sullivan was on brief, for appellee Federal Transit Administration. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 7:00 am
—PART V— Not all Native Advertising May Be Commercial Speech under the First Amendment If there is one thing clear from the case law, it is that the commercial speech analysis under the First Amendment is a fact intensive one that does not clearly lend itself to bright lines, especially when dealing with mixed commercial and noncommercial speech. [read post]
11 May 2022, 8:40 am
" (United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 6:21 am
” Under New York Times v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 8:00 am
” See Id.; see also Sullivan v. [read post]
3 Dec 2023, 6:45 am
” Wolston v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 5:59 am
Government Whistleblowers; Implications of Garcetti v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 8:12 pm
The relevant case is Bartnicki v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:30 am
Norton describes Rust v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am
Madden v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am
Madden v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 9:10 pm
Sullivan v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am
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]
1 Jul 2011, 12:30 am
Although the legal premise for such cases arose in the 1980s (see, for example State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] I.R. 362 and Murphy v DPP [1989] I.L.R.M. 71) real interest in the “missing evidence” concept as a method to seek to force the prohibition of an impending trial did not gather pace until the early 2000s. [read post]
