In Re Providence Journal Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that court’s “blanket nonfiling policy”—a practice of not placing memoranda submitted with motions in publicly available case file—violated First Amendment
• holding, in context of documents to which First Amendment right of access attaches, that “[redaction constitutes a time-tested means of minimizing any intrusion on that right”
• recognizing “that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial documents”
• recognizing “that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial documents”
• acknowledging “the constitutional presumption of public access to documents submitted in conjunction with criminal proceedings”
• balancing the defendant’s cognizable and asserted threat to his Sixth Amendment right to fair trial caused by unrestrained disclosure of certain information against public’s First Amendment right of access

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).