Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Grinnell Communications Corp. v. Love
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 18, 1980No. 80-787PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
Respondent judge found the provisions of the Rules of Superintendence and Code of Judicial Conduct *400relating to broadcasting of court proceedings to be directory in nature rather than mandatory. His analysis can be summarized as follows:
Sup. R. 11, relating to “Conditions for Broadcasting and Photographing Court Proceedings,” uses the mandatory language that “[t]he judge presiding at the trial* * * shall permit the broadcasting***in court proceedings open to the public as provided in Canon 3 A (7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” (Emphasis added.)
However, Canon 3 A(7) qualifies Sup. R. 11 and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Estes v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Murphy v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Chandler v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
- Susie Bradley v. State of TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Joseph Hutchison v. R.C. Marshall, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- State v. HannaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1989
- State ex rel. Law Office of Montgomery County Public Defender v. RosencransOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. GeerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.