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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court Anchor | green | “here too we must reject smith's argument that the cpra permits disclosure of the requested communications on the theory that the city has” | 3 |
| 2 | Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court | green | “prepared, owned, used, or retained” | 3 |
| 3 | Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court | green | “the league contends that we must presume under evidence code section 664 that the” | 3 |
| 4 | City of Champaign v. Madigan | green | “simply by communicating about city business during a city council meeting on a personal electronic device.” | 3 |
| 5 | Howell Education Ass'n v. Howell Board of Education | green | “our conclusion seems to be in direct conflict with the express purposes of the 18 cpra-'to safeguard the accountability of government to the public. . . .” | 3 |
| 6 | Flagg ex rel. Bond v. City of Detroit | green | “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.