Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan"
Results 161 - 180
of 414
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2018, 5:00 pm
’”[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]
21 Jan 2011, 2:40 pm
The event will focus on “The Court, the Closet and the Press.” Wrote the event’s coordinators: Just as New York Times v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 10:30 am
” New York Times Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 12:50 pm
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and New York Times Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 9:14 am
V. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 10:19 am
I'm pleased to say, though, that American law has turned sharply against attempts to punish speech that insults or even defames foreign political leaders; the old libel rules wouldn't survive New York Times Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2018, 10:41 am
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]
5 Jun 2020, 6:00 am
Verner (1963), New York Times v. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 6:09 am
Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2007, 12:36 pm
See id. at 513 ("'The First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions of particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic.'") (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
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
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]
29 May 2018, 3:42 am
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]
3 Jun 2020, 8:02 pm
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]
20 Apr 2023, 9:13 am
Supreme Court, the Justices might have reconsidered their 1964 precedent in New York Times Co. v. [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]
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]
24 Apr 2018, 2:05 pm
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]
31 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
— 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]
