Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 121 - 140 of 301
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2018, 10:41 am by Eugene Volokh
MacLennan (1908), the case that first recognized something like an "actual malice" test for speech about public officials, and that was later cited prominently for this proposition by New York Times Co. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 10:59 am by Elie Mystal
Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud in Mortgage Deals [New York Times] [read post]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
3 Jun 2020, 8:02 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
It cites cases including New York Times Co. v Sullivan, which states that “The right of citizens to inquire, to speak and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. [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]