Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 101 - 120 of 300
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2012, 8:12 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Then Alito pointed out the same people do not question the First Amendment rights of media corporations in cases like The New York Times Co. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 5:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
”  (You know, like New York Times v. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 4:10 am
Typically this privilege is extended in connection with some governmental function such statements made by a member of a legislative body in connection with his or her legislative duties or when uttered as sworn testimony in a judicial or legislative proceeding.** Common requires proof of hatred or ill will.*** See New York Times Co. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 7:11 am
”) (citing New York Times); City of Chicago v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 6:19 am
Speaking with current and former city officials, the New York Times takes a close look at New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's "habit of hair-trigger eruptions of unchecked, face-to-face wrath." [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 11:00 am by Katherine Gallo
App. 3d. 755, 758 (pdf) (biopsy allowed); Sullivan, Long & Haggerty, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 5:00 pm by Michael Farinacci, Stephen P. Younger
’”[xi] Here, Justice Ostrager determined that New York law is controlling because the Agreement was executed in New York and “is governed by New York law by way of a New York choice-of-law provision. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 5:30 am
Alvarez makes clear that lies are not outside the protection of the First Amendment simply because they are lies, and while New York Times v. [read post]