Search for: "Smith v. US Dept. of Justice"
Results 1 - 20
of 95
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2013, 5:53 am
See Smith v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 11:31 pm
Lawsuit for libel brought against public official turns on whether the statements objected to were uttered with “actual malice”Shulman v Hunderfund, 12 NY3d 143In 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 Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254 [1964]). [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
Smith largely repudiated the method of analysis used in prior free exercise cases like Wisconsin v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
Smith largely repudiated the method of analysis used in prior free exercise cases like Wisconsin v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 2:41 pm
Smith ... [read post]
5 May 2008, 1:39 pm
CGL - BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT - "FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF" DOES NOT MEAN "REQUIRED TO NAME" Kassis v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
"[A]n arbitrator 'exceed[s] [their] power' under the meaning of the statute where [their] 'award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (id.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127 [4th Dept 2017],… [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
"[A]n arbitrator 'exceed[s] [their] power' under the meaning of the statute where [their] 'award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (id.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127 [4th Dept 2017],… [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 1:35 pm
By contrast, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett’s concurring opinion today (joined by two other Justices) in Patel v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 2:29 pm
" Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 10:33 am
Alito concluded his opinion: “In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:33 pm
Co. (1st Dept., decided 12/15/2009) Since February 2008, when the New York Court of Appeals issued its groundbreaking, 5-2 decisions in Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 3:55 am
” And in North Carolina Dept of Revenue v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 1:06 pm
See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 9:00 pm
And I urge you not to miss the paragraph they ended with: In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 1:37 pm
I’m not impressed, and neither were the two dissenting justices: Ciparick and Smith. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 10:23 am
(citing Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive 38 (Nov. 2014)). [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [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 Co. v… [read post]
17 Dec 2020, 11:10 pm
For the latter reason, the applicants argue that the Order is not neutral and generally applicable for purposes of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
