Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless ...
Disparagement, in United States trademark law, was a statutory cause of action which permitted a party to petition the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel a trademark registration that "may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or ...
If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $ 25 100). [106] In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment. [107] [108]
The plaintiff in a disparate treatment case need only prove that membership in a protected class was a motivating factor in the employment decision, not that it was the sole factor. One's membership in a protected class will be considered a motivating factor when it contributes to the employment decision.
Rhode Island General Law § 38-2-3 states that "all records maintained or kept on file by any public body, whether or not those records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person or entity shall have the right to inspect and/or copy those records at such reasonable time as may be determined by the custodian thereof."
Neptune said Savage violated the non-disparagement provision and filed a motion to enforce the agreement, setting the stage for the court to decide a question that would affect not only the two ...
Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991) that the Ninth Amendment was intended to vitiate the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius according to which the express mention of one thing excludes all others: [16] [T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law.
For example, Colorado has the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA); [11] in New Jersey the law is known as the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). [12] There are many degrees of accessibility to public records between states, with some making it fairly easy to request and receive documents, and others with many exemptions and restricted categories of ...