Difference between revisions of "Nash v. Lathrop"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (bold) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In '''''Nash v. Lathrop''''', 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886), the [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Judicial Court held that public access to judicial opinions and statutes could not be limited. The Court explained: | + | In '''''Nash v. Lathrop''''', 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886), the [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Judicial Court held that public access to judicial opinions and statutes could not be limited. The [[Court]] explained: |
:It needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, the decisions and opinions of the Justices. | :It needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, the decisions and opinions of the Justices. | ||
[[Category:State Court Cases]] | [[Category:State Court Cases]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Copyright]] |
Latest revision as of 16:26, July 13, 2016
In Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that public access to judicial opinions and statutes could not be limited. The Court explained:
- It needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, the decisions and opinions of the Justices.