K.Q.W. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court’s discretion to restrict access to court records should “clearly be informed by this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings”
• holding that because documents at issue had not yet been released, there was “no previous access to weigh in favor of access . . . granted through [an] unsealing order”
• concluding that “the party from whom materials are seized in the course of a criminal investigation retains a protectible property interest in the seized materials” and explaining that this interest is “cognate to and supportive of” constitutional rights
• noting that the extent to which documents were already made available to the public is a factor when determining whether a document should be disclosed
• providing that the parties should be given the chance to “articulate any particularized privacy interest they wish to assert with respect to a document that is to be released”
• finding that “the possibility of prejudice to the defendants by sensational disclosure” may weigh in favor of sealing the documents when the defendants have yet to be tried

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).