Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gibson's Bakery is a fifth-generation family business established in Oberlin, Ohio, in 1885. [5] [6] Half of the city's 8,000 residents are students or employees—3,000 and 1,000 respectively—of Oberlin College. [7]
The Court held, on a 6–3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had ...
In a 5-2 decision Thursday, the Ohio Supreme Court said victims of defamation should get more time to pursue lawsuits.
] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome. [ 2 ] These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who ...
Ames sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, applying the "background circumstances" test, under which Ames had to show either statistical evidence that her employer discriminated against the majority group or evidence that the employment ...
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that non-disparagement clauses for harassment victims in lawsuit settlements cannot be enforced. Court: Harassment victims like Neptune cop can't be silenced by ...
City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006), was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of Kelo v.City of New London, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain.
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...