Search for: "New York Times Co. v. United States" Results 1021 - 1040 of 2,480
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2013, 6:44 pm by Patrick S. O'Donnell
” [emphasis added]—John Irwin, Prisons in Turmoil (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1980)“In Furman v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 2:13 pm by Lyle Denniston
Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York City. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 1:30 pm
Barnaby Feder contributed reporting from New York and Gardiner Harris from Washington. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:47 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Each of the reports then applied discounts for both lack of control (prohibited under New York law for corporation interests under the statutory fair value standard) and for lack of marketability (permitted, but not required, under New York law) to arrive at bottom-line valuations for Alan’s interest of $6,578,000 and $6,603,000 respectively. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 1:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
MORSON, Plaintiff, -against KREINDLER & KREINDLER, LLP, Defendant.09 CV 2994 (DRH)(ARL)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2011 U.S. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 8:33 pm
Having joined the UNESCO Secretariat in 1977, in 1980 he was appointed Director of the Liaison Office with the United Nations, Permanent Missions and United Nations departments in New York. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The seminal case in New York State regarding standards of fairness is the Pell decision [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222]. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 12:03 pm by Laura C. Baucus and Robert Hugh Ellis
All states except for Illinois, New York and Washington have adopted UETA, but each of those three states has its own laws recognizing electronic signatures. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 9:33 am by cornellvermontlaw
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the now famous case of New York Times Co. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:07 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
But his speech is constitutionally protected, and fully consistent with our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” New York Times Co. v. [read post]