Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. 376 U.S. 225 (1964) preemption of state unfair competition laws which restrict sale of unpatented items, decided same day as Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: Free Speech: 376 U.S. 254 (1964) freedom of speech, libel Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino: 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
This term was adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [2] in which the Warren Court held that: . The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice ...
[5] [21] Of particular concern is that some states' food libel laws seem to violate the "of or concerning" precedent which was established in the Supreme Court's 1964 decision on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. [5]
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_york_times_v._sullivan&oldid=106820238"
Later in life, Sullivan served as director of the Eugene O'Neill National Critics Institute. Dan Sullivan, longtime Times theater critic and one of the nation's most read, dies Skip to main content
Westmoreland's claims were governed by the landmark 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which held that, in order to recover for defamation, a "public figure" like Westmoreland must prove that the defendant made the statements in question with "actual malice" (essentially, with knowledge, or reckless disregard, of falsity). [1]