Search for: "Matter of State of New York v Anonymous" Results 61 - 80 of 459
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2014, 5:03 pm by INFORRM
Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Court of Appeals of New York 2014). [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 3:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
An employee of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed the complaint under the pseudonym "Female Port Authority Officer 47708" v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.In this appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit the court initially noted the case was captioned: “Female Port Authority Officer 47708,” until now notwithstanding the fact that the employee did not… [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 11:21 am
(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews) From yesterday’s New York intermediate appellate court decision in Foster v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 12:58 pm
So holds New York’s highest court in upholding most of the impersonation and forgery convictions in the Raphael Golb/Dead Sea Scrolls case (People v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 5:00 am by Jed Rubenfeld
To be sure, the individuals posting such criminal content could in theory be prosecuted, but given the realities of online anonymity (a problem that would worsen if Facebook were a public forum, because its restrictions on anonymous posting might themselves be unconstitutional), Facebook and YouTube could end up as new Silk Roads on a scale never seen before. [read post]
11 Jun 2022, 12:26 pm by Eugene Volokh
New York Blood Ctr., 213 F.R.D. 108, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 5:12 am
Those in control of the workplace should not be allowed to operate "on the cheap" in the state of New York. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 4:06 am by SHG
New York has taken the position that this is a violation of state ethics laws and demands disclosure of who is funding political position ads. [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]