Carlson v. Pima County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that limits on disclosure are needed to prevent substantial and irreparable public or private harm in appropriate cases
• recognizing that an officer may refuse inspection of public records “where the countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the State should be appropriately invoked”
• holding that custodian of public records could deny inspection based on “countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state,” subject to judicial review
• noting that “an unlimited right of inspection might lead to substantial and irreparable private or public harm,” which must be weighed against “the general policy of open access” to determine whether disclosure is proper
• explaining that common-law limitations on public access “do not preclude inspection entirely even where the competing interests of the common law limitations override the public’s right to inspect certain documents”
• holding all public records required to be maintained and available for copying and inspection are nonetheless “subject to the official’s discretion to deny or restrict access where ... the best interests* of the state ... outweigh the general policy of public access”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).