Legal Opinion
Stam v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided June 20, 1991No. 90-455PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARLEY, Associate Judge:
Appellant seeks to seal the record of the appeal in this Court. Because appellant has offered only an unsupported conjecture in support of her motion to seal the record, we hold that she has failed to carry her burden of articulating a cognizable privacy interest of sufficient significance to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial records. Accordingly, appellant’s motion to seal the record is denied.
I
Appellant filed a motion to seal the record on November 13, 1990. On December 14, 1990, the Court ordered that the record be temporarily sealed pending the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Greg Rushford, the Washington Post Company, Intervenor v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., and William Shawn Reneta AdlerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- Publicker Industries, Inc. v. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pritchett v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
- Yi v. PrincipiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2001
- In Re John Joseph MackCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Mack v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
- Martin v. PrincipiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.