§Why CasetextPricing

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

Amicus Curiae, League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, Supplemental Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee

    489 U.S. 749 (1989)   Cited 1,918 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"

  2. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 131 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding wholesale production of almost five years of governor's calendars and schedules not supported by identifiable public interest

  3. County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (California First Amendment Coalition)

    170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the federal protection for "critical infrastructure information."

  4. City of San Jose v. Superior Court, Santa Clara

    74 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 49 times
    Balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd., favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure

  5. City of Hemet v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.App.4th 1411 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 52 times
    In Hemet, the court similarly engrafted section 832.7 onto the CPRA to hold that a newspaper was not entitled to compel the city to disclose records of an internal police investigation of a peace officer's actions, reasoning that "[l]ogic does not permit the conclusion that information may be `confidential' for one purpose, yet freely disclosable for another."

  6. Humane Soc'y of U.S. v. Superior Court of Yolo Cnty.

    214 Cal.App.4th 1233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 22 times
    Clarifying that its decision did "not create an academic researcher's exemption immunizing disclosure of university documents in future cases"

  7. Los Angeles Unified School Districts v. Superior Court (Los Angeles Times Communications LLC)

    228 Cal.App.4th 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 14 times

    B251693 2014-07-23 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Real Party in Interest. See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Witnesses, § 291 et seq. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. James C. Chalfant, Judge. Petitions granted in part and remanded. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS139828) BIGELOW See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Witnesses, § 291 et seq. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

  8. Michaelis v. Superior Court

    38 Cal.4th 1065 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S133464. June 22, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC090033, Dzintra I. Janavs, Judge. Michaelis, Montanari Johnson, Garry L. Montanari and Nathan B. Rand for Petitioner. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, James M. Chadwick, Jarod M. Bona; Thomas W. Newton, James W. Ewert; Harold W. Fuson, Jr.; Karlene Goller; Andrew Huntington; Thomas R. Burke; and Jonathan Donnellan for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, The Copley Press, Inc., Los Angeles Times, San

  9. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,056 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  10. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. I § 3   Cited 296 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access