Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 121 - 140 of 311
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2016, 2:54 pm
Section V then posits an alternative analysis, normatively autonomous (though not entirely free) of the orbit of the state, a vision possible only when the ideological presumptions of the state are suspended. [read post]
27 Feb 2016, 6:55 am by Lee E. Berlik
As the United States Supreme Court recognized in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 12:11 pm by Eugene Volokh
But if not (and if the plaintiff is a public figure and the article is on a matter of public concern), then the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Accordingly, said the court, this case was governed by the rule of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as embodying "the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public… [read post]
20 Dec 2015, 4:47 am by Dennis Crouch
AIPLA Peter Sullivan of Foley Hoag filed the AIPLA brief. [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]
22 Nov 2015, 9:48 am by Jeremy
It dives into the history of the 1909 Copyright Act and the resulting Herbert v Shanley Co. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 9:01 am
In the landmark case of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the rule that a public official must prove "actual malice" to prevail in a defamation action based on a statement relating to his or her official conduct. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 4:01 am by Lee E. Berlik
In the landmark case of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the rule that a public official must prove “actual malice” to prevail in a defamation action based on a statement relating to his or her official conduct. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 5:42 am
The court also concluded that, where the government has opened up space on its own buses for advertising, the New York Times Co. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:07 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
But his speech is constitutionally protected, and fully consistent with our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” New York Times Co. v. [read post]