Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 121 - 140 of 286
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2018, 2:05 pm by Eugene Volokh
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]
2 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm by Julie Hilden
In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit analyzed two key prior Supreme Court precedents: New York Times v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 3:42 am by Peter Mahler
The Korangy Case Korangy involves a member-managed New York LLC formed by its two 50% members, Amir Korangy and Georgia Malone, to acquire and operate a particular commercial property in Riverhead, New York. [read post]
19 May 2017, 4:34 am
The inability of public figures and public officials to recover for defamation pursuant to New York Times Co. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:35 pm by David Hudson, guest-blogging
South Carolina (1963) involved a pristine example of assembly and petition rights, as 187 African-American youths had their breach-of-peace convictions overturned for marching to the state capital protesting segregation; New York Times Co. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 5:00 am by Jesse Lempel
The New York Court of Appeals has explained, most recently in Messenger v. [read post]
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]
9 Mar 2010, 3:46 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]
31 Mar 2020, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
— 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]
2 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
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 by Guest Blogger
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]
25 Aug 2019, 7:30 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The New York Times remained unimpressed, stating, “So now we get to replace Oxford comma pedantry with semicolon pedantry. [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]
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]