Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided October 18, 1996No. 95 CV 0049 (JBW)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:
Courtroom Television Network (“Court TV”) moved to intervene and for permission to broadcast the argument of pending motions. No objection was made by any party.
General Rule Seven of the Eastern District of New York permits an individual judge to decide if part or all of a case should be recorded for television broadcast, and what the conditions of that recording should be. Entitled “Photographs, Radio, Recordings, Television,” it reads in part:
No one other than court officials engaged in the conduct of court business shall bring…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Katzman v. Victoria's Secret CatalogueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Marisol A. v. GiulianiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hollingsworth v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. GiganteDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- United States v. MunirDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Capitol Records, Inc. v. AlaujanDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2009
- Hollingsworth v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.