11 Cited authorities

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

    20 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 130 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
  2. Mercury Interactive v. Klein

    158 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. H031175. December 19, 2007. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 1:05-CV-050710, James P. Kleinberg, Judge. Heller Ehrman, Sara Beth Brody and Norman J. Blears for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Cheryl W. Foung, Jared Kopel, Thomas Martin, Christina Costley and Jacob T. Veltman for Defendant and Appellant Kenneth Klein. Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, M. Todd Scott, James N. Kramer and Sylvia E. Cedial for Defendant and Appellant Susan Skaer. Farella Braun Martel,

  3. Expedia v. City of Columbus

    681 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that tax collection obligations imposed on Expedia were constitutional because it had agreed to make the collections pursuant to contracts with the hotels
  4. In re Marriage of Burkle

    135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that right of access to court records in dissolution proceedings is no different from right in ordinary civil proceedings
  5. Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores

    149 Cal.App.4th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Savaglio, the state appellate court held that a party had waived its right to obtain a court order sealing certain documents where it failed to move the trial court for a sealing order, could point to "no court order granting the nonexistent motion," and had publicly filed the materials it sought to seal on the dockets of two parallel cases.
  6. In re Marriage of Nicholas

    186 Cal.App.4th 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 19 times

    No. G042365. July 29, 2010. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part IIB. Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 02D010487, James L. Waltz, Judge.) Rutan Tucker, Richard K. Howell, Steven J. Goon and Gerard M. Mooney for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent Stacey Nicholas. Davis Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Alonzo Wickers IV and Robyn Aronson for

  7. Estate of Hearst

    67 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 60 times

    Docket Nos. 50399, 49842. March 3, 1977. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. P 320783, Neil A. Lake, Judge. COUNSEL Flint Mackay, Philip M. Battaglia, Richard I. Gilchrist and William S. Walter for Petitioners and Appellants and for Real Parties in Interest. Gary D. Sowards, Fred Okrand, Jill Jakes, Mark D. Rosenbaum and Terry Imerling for Objectors and Respondents and for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. OPINION FLEMING, J. Trustees under the will of William Randolph

  8. Wilson v. Science Applications Internat. Corp.

    52 Cal.App.4th 1025 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. D021721. February 14, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 580429, James R. Milliken, Judge. COUNSEL Harold W. Fuson, Jr., Judith L. Fanshaw and Scott A. Wahrenbrock for Movant and Appellant. Dennis P. Hickman for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION BENKE, Acting P.J. In this case we hold that after entry of an order sealing all or part of the record in a civil proceeding, members of the public, who were not parties to the proceeding at the time the order was entered

  9. Champion v. Superior Court

    201 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 14 times
    In Champion v. Superior Court (1988), 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 247 Cal.Rptr. 624, reh. denied, the court refused to enforce an agreement which entitled the law firm to almost all the legal fees recovered after an attorney withdrew regardless of how much preparation was performed by the firm.
  10. Pantos v. City and County of San Francisco

    151 Cal.App.3d 258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 16 times
    In Pantos v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 258, 262-263, the same court stated: "The law favors maximum public access to judicial proceedings and court records.
  11. Rule 8.46 - Sealed records

    Cal. R. 8.46   Cited 37 times

    (a)Application This rule applies to sealed records and records proposed to be sealed on appeal and in original proceedings, but does not apply to confidential records. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2014; previously amended effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007.) (b)Record sealed by the trial court If a record sealed by order of the trial court is part of the record on appeal or the supporting documents or other records accompanying a motion, petition for a writ of habeas corpus