Word: disregarded
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...would like to remind you of what occurred: a New York jury held that TIME's article was defamatory and false and that TIME had acted "negligently and carelessly" but held that Sharon, my father, had been unable to prove it was written "with actual malice or reckless disregard." The case was therefore dismissed. The case was also brought before an Israeli court, which agreed that TIME was guilty of defamation; TIME paid court costs and compensation. If such a judgment is a victory, we have different concepts of honesty. Gilad Sharon, SHIKMIM FARMS, ISRAEL...
...would like to remind you of what occurred: a New York jury held that TIME's article was defamatory and false and that TIME had acted "negligently and carelessly" but held that Sharon, my father, had been unable to prove it was written "with actual malice or reckless disregard." The case was therefore dismissed. The case was also brought before an Israeli court, which agreed that TIME was guilty of defamation; TIME paid court costs and compensation. If such a judgment is a victory, we have different concepts of honesty. Gilad Sharon, SHIKMIM FARMS, ISRAEL...
...would like to remind you of what occurred: a New York jury held that TIME's article was defamatory and false and that TIME had acted "negligently and carelessly" but held that Sharon, my father, had been unable to prove it was written "with actual malice or reckless disregard." The case was therefore dismissed. The case was also brought before an Israeli court, which agreed that TIME was guilty of defamation; TIME paid court costs and compensation. If such a judgment is a victory, we have different concepts of honesty. Gilad Sharon, SHIKMIM FARMS, ISRAEL...
...would like to remind you of what occurred: a New York jury held that TIME's article was defamatory and false and that TIME had acted "negligently and carelessly" but held that Sharon, my father, had been unable to prove it was written "with actual malice or reckless disregard." The case was therefore dismissed. The case was also brought before an Israeli court, which agreed that TIME was guilty of defamation; TIME paid court costs and compensation. If such a judgment is a victory, we have different concepts of honesty. Gilad Sharon, SHIKMIM FARMS, ISRAEL...
...exclusionary rule, which bans the use of improperly obtained evidence in criminal trials, has been strongly asserted by the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly a century in order to make sure that police officers don’t disregard individuals’ rights while conducting an investigation. But recently, in an unprecedented ruling, the Supreme Court decided in Herring v. United States that evidence obtained through police “negligence” is permissible in court. This creates a loophole in the exclusionary rule that is not acceptable. The rules governing an investigation have to be well defined...