Search for: "Doe v. Sullivan" Results 1061 - 1080 of 1,527
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Sep 2012, 9:06 pm by Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, guest-blogging
Here is what I say about this precise topic in Chapter 4 of my new book, in my discussion of the landmark Warren Court opinion of New York Times v. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 3:04 pm
  David Por (Allen & Overy) explained that the Paris Appeal Court had addressed this in LG v Conversant: the implementer does not have to produce its licences. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 5:34 am by Florian Mueller
My compensation does not depend on the opinions I express our the outcome of this litigation." [read post]
31 May 2023, 12:38 pm by Michael C. Dorf
We wrote a brief together in Elane Photography v. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
Section 9(2) codified the approach of the Court of Appeal in Dow Jones v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (03 February 2005) established that there needs to be a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction for a defamation claim to be made (see also Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios [2012] EWCA civ 570 (03 May 2012); Reed Elsevier (t/a Lexisnexis) v Bewry [2014] EWCA Civ 1411 (30 October 2014)). [read post]
14 May 2013, 8:12 am by Stephen Wermiel
What does it mean when a Justice says she has doubts about whether her earlier view was right? [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 6:15 am by Marty Lederman
” On February 25, 1964, just nine days after the Beatles’ second appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, Cassius Clay, Olympic gold medalist at the 1960 Games in Rome, won the world heavyweight boxing title by upsetting Sonny Liston in Miami Beach. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 3:37 am by Russ Bensing
  The court backpedaled from that a bit last year in Holland v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:03 am by Erin Miller
Sullivan), the right to vote (Baker v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 3:30 am
 The authors noted that a recent example of federal court reluctance to allow certification in class actions where multiple state laws will apply was in Sullivan v. [read post]