The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
There are few civil procedure laws broadly authorizing trial courts in the United States to consider...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective ju...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
In State v. Young, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the warrantless use of an infrared t...
In State v. Young, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the warrantless use of an infrared t...
This Article offers support for the argument that protective orders for discovery confidentiality sh...
The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables p...
The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables p...
Underlying any court\u27s analysis of the exclusionary rule are certain basic theoretical elements t...
Underlying any court\u27s analysis of the exclusionary rule are certain basic theoretical elements t...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
There are few civil procedure laws broadly authorizing trial courts in the United States to consider...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective ju...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
As the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope and intensity limits of the stop and frisk doc...
In State v. Young, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the warrantless use of an infrared t...
In State v. Young, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the warrantless use of an infrared t...
This Article offers support for the argument that protective orders for discovery confidentiality sh...
The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables p...
The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables p...
Underlying any court\u27s analysis of the exclusionary rule are certain basic theoretical elements t...
Underlying any court\u27s analysis of the exclusionary rule are certain basic theoretical elements t...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...
There are few civil procedure laws broadly authorizing trial courts in the United States to consider...
Although, as a rule, court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public, el...