Search for: "People v. Sullivan" Results 681 - 700 of 979
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2013, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
There are no new PCC adjudications this week, but four new resolved PCC cases: Mr Johnny Dean v NME NME, Clause 3, 25/01/2013; Mr Ian Calland v Golf Monthly, Clause 1, 24/01/2013; Mr Martin Jones v Reading Post, Clause 1, 24/01/2013 and Dame Tessa Jowell v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 24/01/2013. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 4:16 am by Emma Snell
In passing his judgment, Judge Emmet Sullivan for the U.S. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 5:00 am by Jed Rubenfeld
People can go to jail for these speech acts notwithstanding the First Amendment. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 5:54 am by Ryan Goodman
New York Times Co. v Sullivan and later libel cases do offer a defense for false speech about public people or entities—which Dominion may be held to be—if it was uttered without what the Court has characterized as “serious doubt” of its truth or a “high degree of awareness” of its probable falsity. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
Facebook will also launch a new scam ads reporting tool and a dedicated team of people to act upon such reports. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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]
21 Apr 2021, 8:01 am by Sean Quirk
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan publicly expressed their concerns about the PRC actions toward the end of March. [read post]
6 Mar 2021, 4:29 am by SHG
Even Andrew Sullivan explains its “win” in religious terms. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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]