indicating if the requirements of Rule 15(c) are met, there can be no statute of limitations objection without proof of prejudice
How later courts described this case
- indicating if the requirements of Rule 15(c) are met, there can be no statute of limitations objection without proof of prejudice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Steele Hays, Justice, concurring. Before we take a hard line on the enforcement of the rule pertaining to cameras in the courtroom, we ought to examine the rule itself, now in its fifth year, to see if some relaxation is in order. A rule that requires the approval of opposing litigants is almost no rule at all, as experience teaches that adversaries in a lawsuit rarely agree on anything.
An overwhelming number of states have sensibly left the decision regarding cameras where it should be, subject to the discretion of the trial judge. (See Journal of the National Center for State Courts, Volume 9, No. 1, p. 5, for a list of some forty states permitting media coverage and the six states requiring the approval of both parties.) We ought to consider joining the majority, at least with respect to civil trials.
Hickman, J., agrees.