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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2022 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 sentences1998Section 6254 enumerates specific categories of exempt records, while section 6255 “establishes a catch-all exception that permits the government to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that ‘on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.’ ” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 652 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ], original italics.) In considering claims for exemption, we are guided by the general principle that “exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden i 1998Section 6254 enumerates specific categories of exempt records, while section 6255 “establishes a catch-all exception that permits the government to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that ‘on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.’ ” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 652 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ], original italics.) In considering claims for exemption, we are guided by the general principle that “exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden i | 1 | 1 |
Black Panther Party v. Kehoegreen2 sentences1986The Act endows the agency with discretionary authority to override the statutory exceptions when a dominating public interest favors disclosure. 7 (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645, 656 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 106 ].) In addition to these express exceptions, section 6255 establishes a catchall exception that permits the government agency to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that “on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” 8 (Italics added.) Defendants 1986The Act endows the agency with discretionary authority to override the statutory exceptions when a dominating public interest favors disclosure. 7 (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645, 656 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 106 ].) In addition to these express exceptions, section 6255 establishes a catchall exception that permits the government agency to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that “on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” 8 (Italics added.) Defendants | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spindle v. Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group
green
2 sentences2022There remains the catch-all principle that a “[c]onflict of interest between jointly represented clients occurs whenever their common lawyer’s 6 representation of the one is rendered less effective by reason of his representation of the other.” (Spindle v. Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 706, 713 .) However, Simonyan’s claim that there is a conflict of interest does not rely on the catch-all standard either. 2022There remains the catch-all principle that a “[c]onflict of interest between jointly represented clients occurs whenever their common lawyer’s 6 representation of the one is rendered less effective by reason of his representation of the other.” (Spindle v. Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 706, 713 .) However, Simonyan’s claim that there is a conflict of interest does not rely on the catch-all standard either. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Rogers v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.
green
1 sentence1998Section 6254 enumerates specific categories of exempt records, while section 6255 “establishes a catch-all exception that permits the government to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that ‘on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.’ ” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 652 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ], original italics.) In considering claims for exemption, we are guided by the general principle that “exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden i | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Petition of Kearney
neutral
2 sentences1954(See Petition of Kearney (Fla., 1953), 63 So.2d 630 . 1954(See Petition of Kearney (Fla., 1953), 63 So.2d 630 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.