concluding in that case that no government action threatened to punish any protected speech and, thus, holding that there was no chilling effect to be safeguarded against
Summary of this case from Elam v. BollingNo. 92-2061.
October 4, 1993, OCTOBER TERM, 1993.
C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 971 F. 2d 1567.
concluding in that case that no government action threatened to punish any protected speech and, thus, holding that there was no chilling effect to be safeguarded against
Summary of this case from Elam v. Bollingnoting that an agreement is considered ambiguous only where its terms are inconsistent on their face or the language is reasonably prone to different interpretations
Summary of this case from CFN, Inc. v. Drake Petroleum CompanyFull title:SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. v. HENDERSON ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 4, 1993
I believe that the Bandemer plurality opinion provided the narrowest grounds for the Court's decision, and…
Horner v. Rowan Companies, Inc.The purpose of the privilege is to enable a patient to secure complete and appropriate medical treatment by…