Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY.

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 burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure “is on the party that seeks non-disclosure rather than on the party that seeks access”
• noting that reviewing courts “have asked trial courts to make in camera inspections of the relevant documents and balance the rights of the parties”
• superior court procedural order void because it produced a result contrary to the rules promulgated by the supreme court
• superior court procedural order void because it produced a result contrary to the rules promulgated by the supreme court
• superior court procedural order void because it produced a result contrary to the rules promulgated by the supreme court
• “where the court’s discretion has been properly invoked, [we] have asked trial courts to make in camera inspections of the relevant documents and balance the rights of the parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).