Search for: "State v. Sullivan" Results 901 - 920 of 2,487
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2008, 4:11 pm
Oral arguments were heard yesterday by the Supreme Court in the "robo-call" case, State of Indiana v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 1:08 am by Ben
Visitors to the domain arwew now confronted by a notice which states that the FBI has taken control of the site 'pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court'. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 2:30 pm
" (Steve Korris, "Davis lectures Starcher in insurance opinion", Aug. 16; Strahin v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 5:17 am
Sullivan in his blog and later by the New York Times. . . . [read post]
3 Jun 2023, 4:14 pm by INFORRM
Since the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v Sullivan in 1964, it has been extremely difficult for plaintiffs with any public profile to sue for defamation in the United States. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 10:10 pm
United States v. [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]
25 Aug 2019, 7:30 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
According to Ruth Sullivan in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 6:05 am
Trooper Sullivan, an officer of twenty-three years with the State police department, in recent years had the apprehension of violent fugitives as his sole activity within the department. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:03 am by Edith Roberts
Sullivan,” which “generally shields reporters and news platforms from libel or defamation lawsuits provided they were acting in good faith”; Thomas argued that “the high court was wrong to usurp the role of states in regulating libel. [read post]