Search for: "State v. Word" Results 3641 - 3660 of 40,645
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jan 2014, 10:01 am
Yesterday, I wrote about the doctrine that “state action” is immune from federal antitrust law, a doctrine that dates back to the Parker v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:46 pm by Perry Herzfeld
This was said to infringe the act of state doctrine, as explained in decisions such as that of the United States Supreme Court in Underhill v Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) and the House of Lords in Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer [1982] AC 888. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 10:01 am by Quinta Jurecic
That year, the Court handed down Hamdan v. [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]
25 Jun 2011, 12:55 pm by Sandy Levinson
So why do I have scare quotes around the word "rejection"? [read post]