Legal Opinion
In re Rules 7 & 9
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided May 14, 1990PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Our per curiam order of May 8,1989, “In the Matter of Rules of Procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission,” promulgated rules of procedure for the Commission. Rule 7. provided that the Commission would make no disclosure of information under the provisions of Act 637 of 1989 “except in accordance with procedures approved by the Supreme Court and upon reasonable notice to any judge concerned.”
Section 2.(g) of Act 637 provided some basic rules with respect to disclosure. Those rules were apparently taken from the “Model Rules for Judicial Discipline and Disability…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- The First Amendment Coalition, Frederick J. Huysman and Daniel R. Biddle, in 84-1164 v. Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, in 84-1153Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gannett River States Publishing Co. v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- In re Subpoena of BadamiSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- Griffen v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
- Simes v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
- Gannett River States Publishing Co. v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.