Goldstein v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
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
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. HollowayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Thomas Goldstein v. City of Long BeachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast RegionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- McGill v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Goldstein v. City of Long BeachDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.