Legal Opinion
Department of Social & Health Services v. Parvin
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 10, 2015No. 90468-5Published
1Concurrence · FairhurstFairhurst, J.
¶58 (concurring) — I agree with the majority that no blanket exemption exists for the three categories of documents in this case and the trial judge needed to apply the Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 37-39, 640 P.2d 716 (1982) factors prior to sealing. I would reverse and remand for the trial court to apply the Ishikawa factors.16
2Concurrence · MadsenMadsen, C.J.
Gordon McCloud, J.
¶59 (concurring in result) — The majority asserts that “the justifications advanced by the *774superior court do not warrant creating a blanket exemption from GR 15 [and Ishikawa17] in parental termination cases.” Majority at 748.1 agree.…
3Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. AmodeoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of NorfolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of RiversideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gannett Co. v. DePasqualeSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Seattle Times Co. v. IshikawaWashington Supreme Court · 1982
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.