§Why CasetextPricing

SANDER v. STATE BAR

Respondents’ Petition for Review

54 Cited authorities

  1. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.

    435 U.S. 589 (1978)   Cited 5,988 times   9 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 1,644 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that criminaltrials must be open to the public

  3. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga

    435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 2,099 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the common-law and First Amendment presumptions of open records apply in civil cases; setting forth the standard under which such presumptions may be overcome

  4. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

    433 U.S. 350 (1977)   Cited 1,041 times   6 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

  5. People v. Holloway

    33 Cal.4th 96 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 730 times
    Finding no harm from instructions that were "supported by common sense, which many jurors are likely to indulge even without an instruction"

  6. Hoover v. Ronwin

    466 U.S. 558 (1984)   Cited 350 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state-action immunity can be decided on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss

  7. Stone v. University, Md. Medical System Corp

    855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988)   Cited 602 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 369 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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 197 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have wide discretion in the management of their cases

  10. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court

    20 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 185 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a provision of state law governing the closure of court proceedings must be “interpreted in a manner compatible” with the First Amendment right of access

  11. Section 551 - Definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 551   Cited 4,735 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition set out in the APA

  12. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 1   Cited 233 times

    The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. Cal. Const. art. VI § 1

  13. Section 9

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 9   Cited 34 times

    The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding office as a judge of a court of record. Cal. Const. art. VI § 9

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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

  15. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 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

  16. Rule 10.500 - Public access to judicial administrative records

    Cal. R. 10.500   Cited 6 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