Legal Opinion

Cox v. M. A. L.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 8, 2010No. 180711632; A140030PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Respondent appeals an order denying his motion to seal the court file and other records stemming from a civil stalking proceeding against him, contending that the trial court had the inherent authority to seal the records after it had denied petitioner’s request to enter a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against respondent. Respondent further argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion, because removing the potential stigma associated with respondent’s involvement in a civil stalking proceeding decidedly outweighs the public’s interest injudicial transparency…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ortwein v. SchwabSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. Ortwein v. SchwabOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State Ex Rel. Emerald People's Utility District v. JosephOregon Supreme Court · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Department of Human Services v. M. R.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. Hejazi v. HarroldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  3. Oregon State Hospital v. A. J. G.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API