Search for: "Sullivan v. Hudson" Results 1 - 20 of 58
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Feb 2022, 10:15 am by Sam Cohen, Alex Vivona
“There’s a huge opportunity for the Chinese if they were able to get a copy of an actual F-35 to reverse-engineer its features, which they can’t do just based on the intelligence gathering they’ve conducted,” said Bryan Clark, a defense expert at the Hudson Institute. [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 10:15 am by Sam Cohen, Alex Vivona
“There’s a huge opportunity for the Chinese if they were able to get a copy of an actual F-35 to reverse-engineer its features, which they can’t do just based on the intelligence gathering they’ve conducted,” said Bryan Clark, a defense expert at the Hudson Institute. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
And even if viewed as a regulation of purely commercial speech – and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny – the restriction would at least have to pass muster under the Supreme Court’s test in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 12:54 pm by John Elwood
Alamu, 20-31Issues: (1) Whether a prison official is entitled to qualified immunity if he gratuitously assaults a prisoner but not every factor from Hudson v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 12:49 pm by Timothy Zick
Sullivan, Kavanaugh concluded that the prisoner, who had been convicted of murdering two U.S. marshals, was a “limited purpose public figure. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 3:22 pm by Giles Peaker
 Geyfords Ltd v O’Sullivan follows a similar line with the UT taking a restrictive (or precise) view of the meaning of ‘maintenance and running’ of the building. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Bans on other commercial speech must survive Central Hudson. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 11:28 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  That is a Central Hudson question. [read post]
—PART V— Not all Native Advertising May Be Commercial Speech under the First Amendment If there is one thing clear from the case law, it is that the commercial speech analysis under the First Amendment is a fact intensive one that does not clearly lend itself to bright lines, especially when dealing with mixed commercial and noncommercial speech. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 1:35 pm
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which was decided 50 years ago on March 9, 1961. [read post]