§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES

Appellant’s Letter Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Mercury Interactive v. Klein

    158 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding discovery material was not protected by constitutional right of access and remanding for determination of whether documents should remain confidential under protective order

  3. Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores

    149 Cal.App.4th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 44 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.

  4. Expedia v. City of Columbus

    285 Ga. 684 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 40 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

  5. In re Marriage of Burkle

    135 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 45 times
    Holding presumptive right of access applies to divorce proceedings based upon “historical tradition/utility considerations”

  6. In re Marriage of Nicholas

    186 Cal.App.4th 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Sealing orders appealable

  7. Estate of Hearst

    67 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 63 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 15 times
    In Wilson, the court addressed the ability of third parties to challenge an order sealing all or part of the record in a civil proceeding.

  9. Champion v. Superior Court

    201 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 16 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 17 times
    Acknowledging courts’ "inherent power to control their own records to protect jurors’ privacy," but finding no reason for nondisclosure of master jury list

  11. Rule 8.46 - Sealed records

    Cal. R. 8.46   Cited 301 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