Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 2008No. S155944PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

Here we hold that California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants. In Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 979 P.2d 982] (Daily Journal), this court ruled that “the superior court’s powers to disclose grand jury testimony are only those which the Legislature has deemed appropriate.” (Id. at p. 1128.) “[I]f superior courts could disclose materials based only on their inherent powers, the statutory rules governing disclosure of grand jury testimony would be…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. People v. HollowayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Thomas Goldstein v. City of Long BeachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  3. Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast RegionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. McGill v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Goldstein v. City of Long BeachDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API