Judges & the Judiciary: Decisions
Sponsored Links
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia 435 U.S. 829 (1978) (A major purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, which includes discussion of the operations of the courts and judicial conduct, and the article published by appellant's newspaper served the interests of public scrutiny of such matters.)
- Lee v. Hon. Lourdes Martinez 96 P.3d 291 (2004) (Involving judicial discretion to admit evidence relating to polygraph examinations.)
- New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres 128 S.Ct. 791 (2008) (New York's system of choosing party nominees for the State Supreme Court does not violate the First Amendment.)
- O'Neill v. Coughlan 511 F.3d 638 (C.A.6 2008) (In a judge's action seeking to enjoin enforcement of three canons of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which he allegedly violated while campaigning for election to the Ohio Supreme Court, summary judgment for plaintiff is vacated and the injunction dissolved where the district court should have abstained under Younger.)
- Squire v. Coughlin 469 F.3d 551 (6th Cir.2006) (In an action brought by a state court judge under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against disciplinary counsel for the Supreme Court of Ohio alleging a due process violation arising from an investigation into allegations of plaintiff's judicial misconduct, dismissal of the complaint and denial of injunctive relief are affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly found that Younger abstention was appropriate and that it could not grant injunctive relief; and 2) plaintiff's argument under Parratt was foreclosed.)
Ads by FindLaw