Search results
Jul 9, 2020 · The FTC alleges in court records that Cardiff and a partner, Bobby Bedi, were equal partners and had each paid themselves at least $420,000 from the VA money.
Jul 11, 2020 · The FTC alleges in court records that Cardiff and a partner, Bobby Bedi, were equal partners and had each paid themselves at least $420,000 from the VA money.
Nov 25, 2002 · THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PETROS BEDI, Also Known as PETRI BABI, Appellant. Decided November 25, 2002.
May 14, 2013 · The United States brought suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of New York City firefighters.
- Part 1: Introduction
- Part 2: Traditional Rationales Against Liability For Defamation of The Dead
- Legislative Position of Liability For Defamation of The Dead in India
- Judicial Decisions on Liability For Defamation of The Dead
- Suggestions
This project aims to study the article “Dead but Not Forgotten: Proposals for Imposing Liability for Defamation of the Dead” by Lisa Brown and give an Indian perspective of the issue. Modern civil law is characterised by its dynamic interpretation and application. But the archaic principle against liability for defamation of dead people has defied ...
A. Bases of Actions for Defamation of the Living
Reputation is considered a valuable asset by the society, hence civil action is provided as a remedy for false and defamatory statements that damage a person’s standing in the society. To establish a defendant’s liability for defamation, a plaintiff generally must prove four elements: 1) There was a “publication” by the defendant of a false statement of fact 2) the statement was clearly “of and concerning” the plaintiff, 3) The statement impaired or destroyed the plaintiff’s standing in the c...
B. Historical Rejection of Actions for Defamation of the Dead
Courts rely on three primary rationales in rejecting causes of action for defamation of the dead: (1) The cause of action for defamation is a personal one that does not survive death. (2) The boundaries of such a cause of action would be difficult to ascertain. (3) Allowing a cause of action for defamation of the dead would hamper historical research. These reasons have led most courts to believe that cases for defamation of the dead are complicated and ungainly, and not worthy of critical st...
There are no specific legislations regarding defamation in India. However, since defamation is a civil as well as criminal offense, it is governed by the provisions of the Indian Penal code 1860. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation as, ‘whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible, representa...
Courts in India do not impose liability for defamation of the dead. One of the best comments on this issue was given by honourable Justice R Basant in the landmark case Raju vs Chacko on 5 September, 2005 (Equivalent citations: 2005 (4) KLT 197) “A claim for compensation for defamation under the civil law may not be maintainable in respect of defam...
A. Modern Remedies in Lieu of a Cause of Action for Defamation of the Dead
Since courts today are not willing to impose liability for defamation of the dead, plaintiffs bringing action for the same have the option of 3 remedies available – (1) Damages for emotional harms suffered because of the publication. (2) Damages for financial losses resulting from the publication. (3) A judicial declaration that the defamatory statement is false. The plaintiff’s odds of being successful in each of these remedies is discussed in this part. This analysis further brings to light...
B. Legislative Solutions for Defamation of the Dead
The defamation of the dead is considered a very serious issue by some citizens and legislators, who still try to change the ancient rule through legislation, not deterred by the failed attempts to do the same in the past, such as in New York. This Part debates various conceivable legislative solutions to the issue. It further emphasises the need to balance between freedom of speech and protection of individual rights, along with the appropriate relief. This section further independently analy...
Table of Contents Page. Petitioner’s circuit conflict is illusory . . . . .16. Petitioner has not articulated a “compelling” reason for this Court’s review and merely seeks purported error correction as to the individual officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20. III.
Mar 24, 2003 · PEOPLE v. BEDI (2003) Decided: March 24, 2003. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
