Hundtofte v. Encarnacion
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtDwyer, J.
¶1 Article I, section 10 of the Washington Constitution confers upon the public the right to open judicial proceedings and records. This presumption of openness, although not absolute, may be limited only by significant countervailing interests. In determining whether restricted access is justified, the trial court must engage in a five-step analysis in which the asserted interest is weighed against the public’s constitutional right. Because openness is presumed, the determination of whether restricted access is justified must be made on a case-specific basis.
*502¶2 Here, the trial court granted…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. Bone-ClubWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. Bone-ClubWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Seattle Times Co. v. IshikawaWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Allied Daily Newspapers v. EikenberryWashington Supreme Court · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hundtofte v. EncarnaciónWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. DreewesWashington Supreme Court · 2019
- Ringhofer v. RidgeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Chihuly, Inc. v. Anthony Di Re, D.d.s., P.s.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Hundtofte v. EncarnacionWashington Supreme Court · 2014