Mandross v. Peoples Banking Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming \the district court['s] order granting [the Philadelphia Inquirer ] access to the judicial records\
• noting that the public’s right to such access is “beyond dispute”
• noting that the public’s right to such access is “beyond dispute”
• noting that “documents do not contain trade secrets merely because they are confidential,” and distinguishing between legitimate trade secrets and “non-trade secret but confidential business information,” the latter of which is “not entitled to the same level of protection from disclosure”
• affirming “the district court[’s] order granting [the Philadelphia Inquirer] access to the judicial records”
• finding no abuse of discretion where “[t]he district court carefully considered each of the factors which favored access or continued secrecy for the documents at issue and assigned appropriate weights to the various interests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).