United States v. Long Island R. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that documents were relevant to the performance of a judicial function because they would have \informed\ the district court's decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver
• concluding that to constitute a judicial record, a document must be \relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process\
• holding that “mere filing ofa [ ] document with the court is insufficient to render [it] subject to the right of public access”
• noting that public access to judicial documents predates federal constitution and discussing approaches to classifying documents as judicial documents
• stating that “the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document”
• providing that access to judicial documents may be restricted where a party's interests in preventing disclosure outweigh those of the public in gaining access

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).