Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
CBS, INC. v. Blockgreen2 sentences2011(SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4S4-467.) 9 in The Court Correctly Balanced Competing Interests Under Section 6255, Subdivision (a) Alternatively, SDCERA contends the court erred under section 6255, subdivision (a), by balancing the competing interests in favor of disclosure of retiree names linked to their pension amounts. 10 “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [but] it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ (. . . § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence 2011(SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4S4-467.) 9 in The Court Correctly Balanced Competing Interests Under Section 6255, Subdivision (a) Alternatively, SDCERA contends the court erred under section 6255, subdivision (a), by balancing the competing interests in favor of disclosure of retiree names linked to their pension amounts. 10 “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [but] it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ (. . . § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence | 2 | 2 |
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Countygreen2 sentences2013Standard of Review HSUS contends that we should review de novo the trial court’s balancing of interests, which it contends was based on the trial court’s creation of an “erroneous ‘improper influence’ standard.” HSUS further asserts that the trial court’s “findings” regarding improper influence are “irrelevant.” “In analyzing the availability of [the CPRA’s catchall exemption under section 6255 (fn. 11, ante)], we accept the trial court’s express and implied factual determinations if supported by the record, but we undertake the weighing process anew. [Citation.] . . . ‘[Although a reviewing c 2013Standard of Review HSUS contends that we should review de novo the trial court’s balancing of interests, which it contends was based on the trial court’s creation of an “erroneous ‘improper influence’ standard.” HSUS further asserts that the trial court’s “findings” regarding improper influence are “irrelevant.” “In analyzing the availability of [the CPRA’s catchall exemption under section 6255 (fn. 11, ante)], we accept the trial court’s express and implied factual determinations if supported by the record, but we undertake the weighing process anew. [Citation.] . . . ‘[Although a reviewing c | 2 | 2 |
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011(SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4S4-467.) 9 in The Court Correctly Balanced Competing Interests Under Section 6255, Subdivision (a) Alternatively, SDCERA contends the court erred under section 6255, subdivision (a), by balancing the competing interests in favor of disclosure of retiree names linked to their pension amounts. 10 “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [but] it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ (. . . § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence 2011(Connell v. Superior Court [(1997)] 56 Cal.App.4th [601,] 612 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 ].) As our high court has explained, ‘although a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the “facts of the particular case” [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.’ (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court [(2006)] 38 Cal.4th [1065,] 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ].)” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1323 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ], ita | 1 | 4 |
Leader v. Cordsgreen2 sentences2015Code, § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ] (Michaelis); see CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ].) “ ‘A court’s overriding purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent .... [Citation.] In interpreting a statute to determine legislative intent, a court looks first to the words of the statute and gives them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] Statutes mus 2015Code, § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ] (Michaelis); see CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ].) “ ‘A court’s overriding purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent .... [Citation.] In interpreting a statute to determine legislative intent, a court looks first to the words of the statute and gives them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] Statutes mus | 1 | 1 |
San Diego County Employees Retirement Ass'n v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015(San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237, 1241-1242 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 479 ] [statutory interpretation issues are questions of law subject to independent review, while the reviewing court accepts as true any trial court findings of the “ ‘ “facts of the particular case,” ’ ” where supported by substantial evidence]; ACLU, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 66 [substantial *224 evidence standard used for trial court’s factual determinations].) “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de nova, [but] it should accept as 2015(San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237, 1241-1242 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 479 ] [statutory interpretation issues are questions of law subject to independent review, while the reviewing court accepts as true any trial court findings of the “ ‘ “facts of the particular case,” ’ ” where supported by substantial evidence]; ACLU, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 66 [substantial *224 evidence standard used for trial court’s factual determinations].) “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de nova, [but] it should accept as | 1 | 1 |
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015(San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237, 1241-1242 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 479 ] [statutory interpretation issues are questions of law subject to independent review, while the reviewing court accepts as true any trial court findings of the “ ‘ “facts of the particular case,” ’ ” where supported by substantial evidence]; ACLU, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 66 [substantial *224 evidence standard used for trial court’s factual determinations].) “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de nova, [but] it should accept as | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Sonnegreen1 sentence2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011(Connell v. Superior Court [(1997)] 56 Cal.App.4th [601,] 612 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 ].) As our high court has explained, ‘although a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the “facts of the particular case” [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.’ (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court [(2006)] 38 Cal.4th [1065,] 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ].)” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1323 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ], ita 2011(Connell v. Superior Court [(1997)] 56 Cal.App.4th [601,] 612 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 ].) As our high court has explained, ‘although a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the “facts of the particular case” [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.’ (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court [(2006)] 38 Cal.4th [1065,] 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ].)” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1323 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ], ita | 1 | 1 |
Marylander v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec 2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec | 1 | 1 |
City of San Jose v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec 2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec | 1 | 1 |
International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2011(SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4S4-467.) 9 in The Court Correctly Balanced Competing Interests Under Section 6255, Subdivision (a) Alternatively, SDCERA contends the court erred under section 6255, subdivision (a), by balancing the competing interests in favor of disclosure of retiree names linked to their pension amounts. 10 “[A] reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [but] it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ (. . . § 6255, subd. (a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence | 1 | 1 |
San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec 2011In California, the Act includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the “catchall exception” of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.’ (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 ], fns. omitted.) But ‘unless exempted, ¿11 public rec | 1 | 1 |
County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffsgreen2 sentences2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe 2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. City of Berkeley
green
2 sentences2021(Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 1 1065, 1072 [“a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [accepting] as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence”].) This court previously has addressed how to weigh the public interest in the balance under section 6255. 2021(Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 1 1065, 1072 [“a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, [accepting] as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence”].) This court previously has addressed how to weigh the public interest in the balance under section 6255. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Connell v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
green
2 sentences2011(Connell v. Superior Court [(1997)] 56 Cal.App.4th [601,] 612 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 ].) As our high court has explained, ‘although a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the “facts of the particular case” [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.’ (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court [(2006)] 38 Cal.4th [1065,] 1072 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 , 136 P.3d 194 ].)” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1323 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ], ita 2009(Connell v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 612 .) As our high court has explained, “although a reviewing court should weigh the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial court’s findings of the ‘facts of the particular case’ [citation], assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1072 .) In this case, the trial court considered the evidence, made factual findings, and engaged in the weighing process before concluding that the balance of interests favor | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Detroit Free Press, Inc v. City of Southfield
green
2 sentences2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe 2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2011In SCERS, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at page 469 , the court reached the same decision because, among other things, “a public pension is deferred public compensation.” (See also County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 29 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ] [“Any shortfall ... is made up through increases in employer contributions”]; In re Marriage of Sonne (2010) 48 Cal.4th 118, 121, 125 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 , 225 P.3d 546 ]; Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield (2005) 269 Mich.App. 275 [ 713 N.W.2d 28, 35 ] (Detroit Free Press).) The “names of pe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.