Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan"
Results 181 - 200
of 420
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2009, 4:18 am
"Further, said the court, the plaintiff must also show that the defamatory statement is actionable "irrespective of special harm" [defamation per se] or that publication of the statement caused special harm [defamation per quod].If, however, the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, the Circuit Court said that the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's statements are false and that the defendant acted with actual malice, citing… [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 2:05 pm
Yet Massachusetts courts could also in principle revive the common-law crime just by redefining it consistently with New York Times Co. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
— Phil Miles (@PhilipMiles) December 15, 2019 Day 89: #SCOTUS100 New York Times Co v Sullivan - Defamation of public figures requires actual malice… thus protecting NYT's long-standing tradition of negligently publishing false information. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 4:15 am
Lawsuit for libel brought against public official turns on whether the statements objected to were uttered with "actual malice"Shulman v Hunderfund, 2009 NY Slip Op 02263, Decided on March 26, 2009, Court of AppealsIn 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… [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 5:00 am
The New York Court of Appeals has explained, most recently in Messenger v. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 6:01 am
Verner (1963), New York Times v. [read post]
1 May 2023, 8:57 am
Madison’s attack on the Sedition Act laid the foundation for the Supreme Court’s landmark press freedom decision, New York Times Co. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
However, the court never conclusively stated whether it was applying New York law; rather, Judge Sullivan said only that the outcome was the same whether New York or Pennsylvania law applied. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 5:59 am
Because of this communicative role, hyperlinks should be granted the ultimate in First Amendment protection -- a constitutional privilege like that given to newspapers in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 5:01 am
In New York Times Co. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 10:23 am
Second, the reasonable viewer, unlike when Sullivan, Butts or Gertz were decided, no longer takes the time to research and verify reporting that often is not, in fact, news. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 6:58 am
New York Times Co. [read post]
30 Mar 2021, 9:01 pm
Thus, in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 5:35 am
Indeed, the purpose of the New York Times v. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 4:03 pm
Defendant relies heavily on New York Times Co. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 7:30 pm
The New York Times remained unimpressed, stating, “So now we get to replace Oxford comma pedantry with semicolon pedantry. [read post]
31 May 2023, 12:38 pm
And while he thought that the landmark ruling in New York Times v. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 3:49 am
New York State Div. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am
§§ 1692e, 1692f, and had charged a usurious rate of interest in violation of New York law, N.Y. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am
§§ 1692e, 1692f, and had charged a usurious rate of interest in violation of New York law, N.Y. [read post]
