Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 181 - 200 of 394
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2019, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language MSN – Peter Baker and Michael Shear (New York Times) | Published: 8/4/2019 At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border. [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
After rejecting Pirate's contention that the "actual malice" standard from New York Times Co. v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
New York, the court for the first time suggested that the First Amendment applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 7:04 am by Joy Waltemath
The High Court noted that the actual malice standard in the ATSA was patterned after New York Times Co v Sullivan, which requires material falsity, and Congress presumably meant to incorporate it into the ATSA’s immunity exception and did not mean to deny immunity to true statements made recklessly. [read post]
19 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" In papers, plaintiff theorizes that the previous cases mentioned are examples of an "extraordinarily speech-protective law" emerging from the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v Sullivan. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" In papers, plaintiff theorizes that the previous cases mentioned are examples of an "extraordinarily speech-protective law" emerging from the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v Sullivan. [read post]
17 May 2011, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
In New York Times v Sullivan ((1964) 376 US 254) the US Supreme Court held that because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution a public official could not obtain damages for defamation in relation to his official conduct, unless actual malice could be proved ie that the maker of the statement knew it to be false or was reckless as to its truth. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
  The same First Amendment protection equally precludes private suits under New York Times Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 2:22 pm by Jillian Stonecipher
Robert Welch, Inc.), and in many cases with actual malice (New York Times Co. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 5:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co., 116 AD3d 740, 741, quoting Loevner v Sullivan & Strauss Agency, Inc., 35 AD3d 392, 393). [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 10:19 am by Mike Madison
Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 9:04 am by Eugene Volokh
That there is a countervailing interest and, hence, an excuse in this case is clear from the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 1:30 am by Peter Mahler
I’ve previously featured on this blog several illustrative fixed price buy-sell lawsuits precipitated by stale or absent certificates of value, including Sullivan v Troser Management, Nimkoff v Central Park Plaza Associates, and DeMatteo v DeMatteo Salvage Co. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Publisher and distributor liability is consistent with the First Amendment, despite the chilling effect it might sometimes create, so long as it complies with the New York Times v. [read post]