C.L. v. Edson

How courts have described this case

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

• applying only the public interest test to a request to seal court documents
• affirming circuit court’s decision to redact identifying references to minor plaintiffs and to deny plaintiffs’ request for a more restrictive seal of the court records when plaintiffs showed only “potential harm” for which there was “no factual foundation”
• motion was timely when filed as soon as movant learned its interest was implicated and when existing parties would not be prejudiced
• seal permitted when public interest in keeping a court record confidential outweighs the public policy of open court records

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).