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.
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul: 373 U.S. 132 (1963) Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause: Silver v. New York Stock Exchange: 373 U.S. 341 (1963) duty of self-regulation imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws: Ker v. California: 374 U.S. 23 (1963)
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 ...
But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March found that the disputed warnings were "factual and uncontroversial," thus satisfying the relevant legal standard under the ...
The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).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 ...
A federal appeals court revived Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times on Wednesday, citing errors by a lower court judge, particularly his decision to dismiss the lawsuit while a ...
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!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_york_times_v._sullivan&oldid=106820238"