Word: inc
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...answer has had to be based on precedent. Ever since Wright v. Mt. Mansfield Lift, Inc. in Vermont 16 years ago, it has been held that the skier assumes certain obvious risks when he starts down a slope. If he is unfortunate enough to run smack into a stump or a buried fence, it is usually considered not to be the fault of the stump or the stump's owners. Conversely, when a skier is heading uphill on a lift, the lift owner is usually liable for any injury suffered because of mechanical collapse or breakdown unless the injured...
...prosperity have now become a source of irritation; the foul air that had come to be accepted as an inevitable part of city living has suddenly become intolerable. "Tomorrow morning when you get up," reads a recent magazine ad placed by New York's Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., "take a nice deep breath. It'll make you feel rotten." Indeed, as the adjoining color pages show, the U.S. city dweller had only to look at his skyline last week to see the startling and ominous inroads that smog has made...
...addition to crackling prose of a caliber rarely heard on TV, the Xerox Corp.-sponsored program is livened by the affecting personal reminiscences of Pearl Buck, among others-and the crisp editing of David Wolper Productions Inc...
Last week the court answered that question for the first time. Out went a New York privacy judgment against Time Inc., publisher of LIFE magazine. In came a new standard: the First Amendment protects the press against privacy suits for false news reports-unless the plaintiff manages to prove conclusively that the report was deliberately or recklessly false...
Charging invasion of privacy, the Hills sued LIFE'S corporate parent, Time Inc., under an old, tough New York State civil rights statute that requires the written consent of any living person when his name or picture is used "for the purposes of trade." Originally aimed at unscrupulous advertising, that law was a 1903 byproduct of the Warren-Brandeis article. To avoid conflict with the First Amendment, New York courts have construed it as permitting the press truthfully to portray anyone without his consent as long as he was involved in news of public interest. But that privilege rarely...