Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 141 - 160 of 436
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2010, 6:33 am
Gelstein,  the New York Court of Appeals noted: Under the [New York] Times [Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254)] malice standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” (Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 74). [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am by INFORRM
Moreover, these innovations in Commonwealth law form part of a process of development that we can trace back to the US Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Another suggestion: in the four decades since New York Times 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]
5 Dec 2022, 12:10 pm by Lawrence Solum
In doing so, the Article addresses how this originalistic approach might affect the continued viability of the Court’s actual malice standard in defamation law adopted nearly sixty years ago in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 10:30 pm by Sherica Celine
New Practical Guidance Content Workplace Harassment Issues for New York and New York City Employers Video – by Tracy High and Jake Singer, Sullivan & Cromwell I-9 Compliance for Employers Video – by Morgan Bailey and Maximillian L. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 1:41 pm
  Since he's (arguably) a celebrity, he'd be considered a public figure and would have to satisfy the higher actual malice standard set out in The New York Times Co. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 7:11 am
”) (citing New York Times); City of Chicago v. [read post]