52 Cited authorities

  1. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.

    435 U.S. 589 (1978)   Cited 3,882 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" can constitute a sufficient reason to preserve records under seal
  2. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia

    448 U.S. 555 (1980)   Cited 1,431 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that criminaltrials must be open to the public
  3. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

    433 U.S. 350 (1977)   Cited 1,005 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state rule barring lawyers from advertising their services was not challengeable under the Sherman Act but also that the state rule, as applied, violated the attorneys' First Amendment free speech rights
  4. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga

    435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 613 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that documents "submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are - as a matter of law - judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches"
  5. Hoover v. Ronwin

    466 U.S. 558 (1984)   Cited 329 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state-action immunity can be decided on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss
  6. People v. Holloway

    33 Cal.4th 96 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 451 times
    In People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 212, 91 P.3d 164, while interrogating defendant about two murders, the police suggested the killings might have been accidental or occurred during a blackout and such circumstances could make a lot of difference.
  7. Stone v. University, Md. Medical System Corp

    855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988)   Cited 448 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court should abrogate the right of public access to judicial documents only in "unusual circumstances"
  8. Valley Broadcasting v. U. States Dist. Court

    798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 277 times
    Holding that courts "must carefully state the articulable facts demonstrating an administrative burden sufficient to deny access" to judicial records
  9. U.S. v. Wecht

    484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 145 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have wide discretion in the management of their cases
  10. In re Providence Journal Co., Inc.

    293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that the District of Rhode Island's blanket policy of refusing to file memoranda of law that counsel were required to submit in connection with motions violated the First Amendment
  11. Section 551 - Definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 551   Cited 4,075 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition set out in the APA
  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 219 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  13. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 4 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective

  14. Rule 10.500 - Public access to judicial administrative records

    Cal. R. 10.500   Cited 3 times

    (a)Intent (1) The Judicial Council intends by this rule to implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), added by Senate Bill X413 (Stats. 2009-10, 4th Ex. Sess. ch. 22), which requires adoption of rules of court that provide public access to nondeliberative and nonadjudicative court records, budget and management information. (2) This rule clarifies and expands the public's right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public's right of access. (b)Application