Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. [ 3 ] The underlying case began in 1960, when The New York Times published a full-page advertisement by supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama , for their treatment of civil rights ...
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)
The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case relied on the issue of actual malice , which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the ...
Montgomery Public Safety commissioner L. B. Sullivan sued the Times for defamation. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the verdict in Alabama county court and the Supreme Court of Alabama violated the First Amendment. The decision is considered to be landmark.
Palin and media critics have viewed the case as a vehicle to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for public figures to prove ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_york_times_v._sullivan&oldid=106820238"
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The image involved here is a reproduction of a full-page New York Times ad, originally published on 29 March 1960. The ad was the subject matter of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan a very important case in US Constitutional law, and so an image of the actual ad might well be considered "iconic" and "historically significant" It is surely not ...