Sinclair v. Brill

How courts have described this case

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

• denying defendants’ request to seal case stating claims of childhood abuse, finding defendants’ privacy interests were insufficient to “withdraw from public scrutiny the judicial process that has occurred and will occur in this case”’
• privacy interests of defendant accused of child sex abuse were insufficient to “withdraw from public scrutiny the judicial process that has occurred and will occur in this case.”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).