privacy challenge (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

privacy challenge in Arkansas

6 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1981–1996 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
McCambridge v. City of Little Rockgreen
ark · 1989 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1996
2 sentences

1996I believe a privacy claim in this context would most likely be approached under a constitutional right to privacy, the test for which is delineated in the case of McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219 , 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989).

1996I believe a privacy claim in this context would most likely be approached under a constitutional right to privacy, the test for which is delineated in the case of McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219 , 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989).

23
Slevin v. City of New Yorkgreen
nysd · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992See Slevin, supra at 920 and n. 3. (". . . while virtually every court that has considered financial disclosure laws has stated that the Constitution shields individual and family privacy as to financial matters, few courts have placed constitutional limits of any sort on legislatures requiring financial disclosures and providing that they be available to the public.") 1 With regard to the privacy analysis, a pro-disclosure balance has been reached, following intermediate scrutiny or a balancing approach.

11
cluster 422035green
ca2 · 1983 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992See Slevin and Barry, supra. The governmental interest in revealing and deterring corruption and conflicts of interest has generally been held to outweigh the possible infringement of the individual's privacy interests.

11
Smith v. Marylandred
scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)._ The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, has not expressly mentioned the privacy standard enunciated in Katz in any of the open field cases it has decided since 1967.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Whalen v. Roe green
scotus · 1977
1 sentence

1989This material consequently meets the privacy test as stated in Whalen v. Roe, supra. Death has sealed the lips of John Markle and his wife and children.

11989–1989
Dean v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1973
2 sentences

1981We held on appeal that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the wooded area behind his apartment and it was not within the purview of one’s “curtilage” as defined in Sanders v. State, supra. In Dean v. Superior Court for County of Nevada, 35 Cal. App. 3d 112 , 110 Cal. Rptr. 585 (1973), the court, in considering the Hester open field doctrine and the privacy standard in Katz, stated: A generalized expression of Fourth Amendment doctrine usually excludes ‘open fields’ from the scope of constitutional protection. ...

1981We held on appeal that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the wooded area behind his apartment and it was not within the purview of one’s “curtilage” as defined in Sanders v. State, supra. In Dean v. Superior Court for County of Nevada, 35 Cal. App. 3d 112 , 110 Cal. Rptr. 585 (1973), the court, in considering the Hester open field doctrine and the privacy standard in Katz, stated: A generalized expression of Fourth Amendment doctrine usually excludes ‘open fields’ from the scope of constitutional protection. ...

11981–1981

Where else courts name it

CA 66 (1982–2026) IL 46 (1988–2025) PA 27 (1982–2016) WA 25 (1986–2025) NJ 19 (1995–2025) TX 15 (1974–2025) NY 15 (1991–2025) MT 14 (1984–2024) AK 11 (1984–2021) WI 8 (1989–2019) MA 7 (1975–2019) AR 6 (1981–1996) AZ 5 (1997–2023) RI 5 (1977–2009) MN 5 (1984–2016) FL 5 (1998–2010) MS 4 (1995–2007) CT 4 (1994–2025) KY 4 (1996–2026) HI 4 (2007–2021) ME 4 (2005–2023) NC 3 (2021–2021) KS 3 (1996–2005) OH 3 (2001–2006) NH 3 (2016–2025) LA 3 (2000–2018) OR 3 (1977–2010) CO 3 (1972–2016) VT 2 (2002–2005) IN 2 (1993–2024) SC 2 (1999–2023) NM 2 (1988–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check